ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2024
Migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device into the bladder complicated by stone formation an exceptional complication: case report and literature review.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2024. 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.
- From contraception to urolithiasis: Migration of a contraceptive device into the urinary bladder lumen.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Approach to Intrauterine Device Migration Into the Bladder Using Holmium Laser.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cystoscopic retrieval of a migrated IUD with bladder stone formation during pregnancy termination: a Case Report.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe report a rare and unusual case of intravesical migration of an intrauterine device with stone formation. The intrauterine device (IUD) is the most common method of reversible contraception in women. However, its insertion is not without risk, it can cause early or late complications. IUD can perforate the uterus wall and migrate into adjacent structures. CASE PRESENTATION: A 35 year-old female 5 gravid, 4 para has been benefited from intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) 5 years ago, she was presented to gynecological consultation for chronic pelvic pain with urinary symptoms. There was history of a good IUD insertion 5 years ago, considered expelled after one month of its pose. Physical examination was normal, but a pelvic ultrasound and a plain abdominal radiography allowed the detection of an IUD outside the uterine cavity, but inside bladder. A diagnostic and therapeutic cystoscopy was performed, and the IUD with calculus was successfully removed. There were no postoperative complications.
conclusionThis case is reported to highlight and to reiterate the need to think about one of the rare complication of IUD insertion, which every practitioner must know, it's the transuterovesical migration, before concluding wrongly to its expulsion. It's a consequence of, non-compliance with the rules for inserting an IUD and poor monitoring. The evolution towards calcification is a certain consequence; its screening involves rigorous clinical monitoring.
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.