ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
Stent encrustation or fragmentation? A case report of post stent removal encrustation in postpartum woman and literature review.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urological Challenges during Pregnancy: Current Status and Future Perspective on Ureteric Stent Encrustation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Difficulty in Removing a Ureteral Stent post Childbirth due to Encrustation: A Case Report.The Kobe journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUreteral stents are commonly used in the field of urology to relieve ureteral obstruction. However, complications relating to ureteral stent use, such as encrustation continue to occur, especially with prolonged indwell time. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we present a 37-year-old postpartum woman with a foreign body in her bladder after removing a ureteral stent 1 month before. She insisted that the foreign body was the fragment of stent and asked for medical malpractice indemnity payments while the surgeon of her insisted that the stent was intact during the procedure. Finally, the foreign body was confirmed as an encrustation by cystoscopy and the patient received 10,000 yuan ($ 1500) as indemnity payments after encrustation removal.
conclusionIn the absence of guidelines, stent indwelling time vary with centers' habits, stent materials and patient's education. Early detection of stent encrustation and timely removal of the encrusted stent are still the best way to avoid stent retention. Violent stent removal is of danger and not recommended in any case.
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.