ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2021
Managing Ruptured Splenic Ectopic Pregnancy Without Splenectomy: Case Report and Literature Review.
Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary splenic pregnancy: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Article
- Ectopic Pregnancy with a Normally Located Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System in a Woman with Adenomyosis: Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Spontaneous rupture of spleen in the second trimester: a case report and literature review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Review
- Ruptured splenic ectopic pregnancy: A rare and life-threatening case report.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Management and Diagnosis of Ectopic Splenic Pregnancy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Abdominal pregnancy: a case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Splenic ectopic pregnancy is extremely rare but carries a high risk of uncontrollable life-threatening bleeding. Our aim is to try to diagnose those cases earlier and to include splenic preservation as good alternative for selected cases. Extensive review of the literature has been performed. Thirty-one case reports were identified, of which 4 have been excluded because they were not written in English. A 36-year-old woman presented to the Emergency Department with haemorrhagic shock. Despite the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) being in situ for 4 months, urinary and serum tests were both positive for pregnancy, and an ultrasound scan revealed haemoperitoneum suggestive of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. An emergency Pfannenstiel laparotomy was performed and a diagnosis of spontaneous tubal abortion was made and the abdomen was subsequently closed. Following a period of cardiovascular instability on the Intensive Care Unit postoperatively, an urgent CT scan was performed which revealed bleeding from the spleen. A midline laparotomy was performed by the general surgeon, which involved resection of the gestational sac and splenorrhaphy. Twenty-seven cases were reviewed, and 73% of them presented as an emergency and 21 cases (81%) had been managed with splenectomy. CT scan had been used in eight of the previous case reports of splenic ectopic pregnancy with 100% diagnostic accuracy rate. Non-tubal ectopic pregnancies are very rare. Splenorrhaphy is a safe alternative to splenectomy in cases of splenic ectopic pregnancy. CT abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast can be very helpful in relatively stable patients with a vaginal ultrasound demonstrating an empty uterus, no clear adnexal masses or free fluid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.