ArticleCureus2024
A Family Physician's Experience in the Removal of Migrating Subdermal Contraceptive Implants.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subdermal contraceptive implants are among the most effective and reversible contraceptive methods available today. Implanon®️, approved by the US FDA, is widely used for long-term family planning due to its extended contraceptive effects. Although generally safe, these implants can occasionally lead to rare but serious complications, such as migration into deeper axillary structures. In this case report, we describe the experience of a family physician with a 30-year-old Saudi woman whose Implanon implant migrated approximately 11 cm from the original insertion site over three years. The patient presented for removal of the implant, which had reached the end of its contraceptive duration and was to be removed in preparation for future conception. Initial attempts by the family physician to localize and remove the implant were unsuccessful due to its continued migration toward the axilla. Consequently, the case was referred to the obstetrics and gynecology clinic and subsequently to the orthopedic department. The foreign body was successfully removed using an intraoperative, fluoroscopy-guided procedure, with no complications observed post-surgery. This case underscores the importance of physician awareness and a multidisciplinary approach to managing such complications. It also highlights that implant migration is not necessarily related to the physician's skill or patient characteristics, underscoring the unpredictable nature of this complication. This report aims to provide insights and recommendations for handling similar cases, advocating for early intervention, and the use of imaging techniques when managing non-palpable implants.
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.