ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Case report: Uterine perforation caused by migration of intrauterine devices.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small bowel necrosis caused by migrated intrauterine device: a rare surgical emergency.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Silent Migration for Three Decades, Intravesical and Sigmoid Colon Perforation by a Forgotten IUCD: A Rare Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Strangulated Small Bowel Obstruction Caused by a Migrated Ring-Shaped Intrauterine Device: Two Case Reports and a Literature Review.The American journal of case reports · 2026Review
- Bladder Stone Secondary to Migration of an Intrauterine Device: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- An asymptomatic postmenopausal uterine perforation with bilateral embedment by a V-shaped intrauterine device: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Intraperitoneal migration of an intrauterine device: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are often considered a form of contraception by women of reproductive age because of their reversible, effective, safe, and convenient nature. However, its complications include bleeding, infection, displacement, and uterine perforation. As most patients do not exhibit any obvious symptoms, they ignore their complications and are unaware of the necessity of regular evaluation. Therefore, they are unable to implement timely interventions for the complications that can result in serious consequences. Although, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound has demonstrated greater sensitivity in detecting subtle IUD malposition issues, particularly with side-arm embedment. Computed tomography (CT) scanning followed by multi-planar reformatting, maximum intensity projection, and volume rendering can precisely and intuitively display the morphology and location of the IUD, accurately exhibit the anatomical relationship between the IUD and the pelvis, and allow for a more accurate assessment of the degree of perforation and presence and absence of bowel perforation, thereby enabling us to select a more suitable surgical procedure with less damage to the patient. In this study, we reported an asymptomatic case of uterine perforation of the IUD into the serosal layer of the bladder, which developed 6 years post-IUD placement. A preoperative 3D reconstruction was made using the CT images of the IUD; then, the IUD was successfully removed with the assistance of a hysteroscope and laparoscope.
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.