ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Bladder perforation injury after percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheterization: A case report.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Tenckhoff catheter placed in bladder. Case and review].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInsertion of a catheter into the bladder is a rare complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), and is mainly related to surgical injury. This paper reports a case of bladder perforation that was caused by percutaneous PD catheterization. CASE SUMMARY: A 64-year-old man underwent percutaneous PD catheterization for end-stage renal disease. On the second day after the operation, urgent urination and gross hematuria occurred. Urinalysis showed the presence of red and white blood cells. Empirical anti-infective treatment was given. On the third day after the operation, urgent urination occurred during PD perfusion. Ultrasound showed that the PD catheter was located in the bladder, and subsequent computed tomography (CT) showed that the PD catheter moved through the anterior wall into the bladder. The PD catheter was withdrawn from the bladder and catheterization was retained. Repeat CT on the fourth day after the operation showed that the PD catheter was removed from the bladder, but there was poor catheter function. The PD catheter was removed and the patient was changed to hemodialysis. CT cystography showed that the bladder healed well and the patient was discharged 14 d after the operation.
conclusionBladder perforation injury should be considered and treated timeously in case of bladder irritation during and after percutaneous PD catheterization. The use of Doppler ultrasound and other related technologies may reduce the incidence of such complications.
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.