ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants under continuous ultrasound guidance is effective, quick, and safe.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Localization of a contraceptive implant using a silicon chip-based handheld ultrasound device.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-Guided Hydrodissection with Needle Stabilization: An Innovative Nerve-Sparing Approach to Remove a Contraceptive Implant Causing Ulnar Neuropathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Removal of 2-Rod Subdermal Implant Identified on X-Ray: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Peripheral nerve ultrasound: a survival guide for the practicing radiologist with updates.The ultrasound journal · 2025Review
- Ultrasound-guided minimally invasive removal of deep contraceptive implants: outcomes and challenges.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Non-palpable contraceptive implants localization: review of imaging techniques and algorithm proposal.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Ultrasound guided procedures in the musculoskeletal system: a narrative review with illustrative examples.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- Etonogestrel-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant: Budget impact analysis based on the Brazilian private healthcare system.PloS one · 2024Review
- Case report: Ultrasound-guided removal of foreign matter from the chest wall.International journal of surgery case reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.