Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34651210›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance is effective, quick, and safe.

Thibaut Jacques, Charlotte Brienne, Simon Henry, Hortense Baffet, Géraldine Giraudet, Xavier Demondion, Anne Cotten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Case report: Ultrasound-guided removal of foreign matter from the chest wall.International journal of surgery case reports · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thibaut JacquesDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Lille University Hospital Center, Centre de Consultations Et D'imagerie de L'appareil Locomoteur, Rue du Professeur Emile Laine, 59037, Lille Cedex, France. thibaut.jacques@chu-lille.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5086-2168
Charlotte BrienneDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Lille University Hospital Center, Centre de Consultations Et D'imagerie de L'appareil Locomoteur, Rue du Professeur Emile Laine, 59037, Lille Cedex, France.
Simon HenryDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Lille University Hospital Center, Centre de Consultations Et D'imagerie de L'appareil Locomoteur, Rue du Professeur Emile Laine, 59037, Lille Cedex, France.
Hortense BaffetDivision of Medical and Surgical Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, Lille University Hospital Center, Lille, France.
Géraldine GiraudetDivision of Medical and Surgical Gynecology, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, Lille University Hospital Center, Lille, France.
Xavier DemondionDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Lille University Hospital Center, Centre de Consultations Et D'imagerie de L'appareil Locomoteur, Rue du Professeur Emile Laine, 59037, Lille Cedex, France.
Anne CottenDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Lille University Hospital Center, Centre de Consultations Et D'imagerie de L'appareil Locomoteur, Rue du Professeur Emile Laine, 59037, Lille Cedex, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, performance, and complications of a non-surgical, minimally-invasive procedure of deep contraceptive implant removal under continuous ultrasound guidance.

methodsThe ultrasound-guided procedure consisted of local anesthesia using lidocaine chlorhydrate 1% (10 mg/mL) with a 21-G needle, followed by hydrodissection using NaCl 0.9% (9 mg/mL) and implant extraction using a Hartmann grasping microforceps. The parameters studied were the implant localization, success and complication rates, pain throughout the intervention, volumes of lidocaïne and NaCl used, duration of the procedure, and size of the incision. Between November 2019 and January 2021, 45 patients were referred to the musculoskeletal radiology department for ultrasound-guided removal of a deep contraceptive implant and were all retrospectively included.

resultsAll implants were successfully removed en bloc (100%). The mean incision size was 2.7 ± 0.5 mm. The mean duration of the extraction procedure was 7.7 ± 6.3 min. There were no major complications (infection, nerve, or vessel damage). As a minor complication, 21 patients (46.7%) reported a benign superficial skin ecchymosis at the puncture site, spontaneously regressing in less than 1 week. The procedure was very well-tolerated, with low pain rating throughout (1.0 ± 1.5/10 during implant extraction).

conclusionsMinimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance alone is feasible, effective, and safe. In the present cohort, all implants were successfully removed, whatever the location, with short procedural time, small incision size, low pain levels, and no significant complications. This procedure could become a gold standard in this indication. KEY POINTS: • Minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance alone is feasible, which led to a success rate of 100% whatever the location (even close to neurovascular structures), with only a small skin incision (2.7 ± 0.5 mm). • The procedure was safe, quick, without any major complications, and very well tolerated in terms of pain. • This minimally invasive ultrasound-guided procedure could become the future gold standard for the removal of deep contraceptive implants, as an alternative to surgical extraction, even for implants in difficult locations such as subfascial ones or those close to neurovascular structures.

Indexed as

Device RemovalLidocaineContraceptive AgentsHumansRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyContraceptive AgentsLidocaineContraceptionContraceptive devices, femaleForeign bodiesRadiology, interventionalUltrasonography, interventional

Identifiers

PMID34651210
PMCPMC8831252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.