ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2024
Bladder injury caused by a urachal remnant during laparoscopic ileocecal resection: A case report.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBladder injuries that occur during laparoscopic surgery are rare but a serious complication. In particular, patients with urachal remnants have a high risk for bladder injuries during suprapubic port insertion. We report the case of a bladder injury caused by a urachal remnant during laparoscopic ileocecal resection for cecal cancer. CASE PRESENTATION: A 46-year-old man diagnosed with cT2, N0, M0, stage I cecal cancer underwent laparoscopic ileocecal resection. A suprapubic port was inserted under direct vision. After ileocecal resection, a bladder injury was discovered after the removal of the suprapubic port. The suprapubic port wound was extended to reveal the bladder wall around the injury, and the injury was sutured. During surgery, preoperative computed tomography (CT) results were reviewed, and sagittal CT revealed a urachal remnant. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged 10 days after surgery. DISCUSSION: Urachal remnants are rare in adults. This case emphasizes that although it is difficult to diagnose asymptomatic urachal remnants preoperatively, sagittal CT scans may aid in the diagnosis. Careful consideration of port placement and preoperative urethral catheter insertion is important to prevent bladder injuries in cases of urachal remnants.
conclusionSagittal CT scans are considered effective in detecting diverticulum-type urachal remnants. Port placement without the need for a suprapubic trocar should be considered in cases with urachal remnants.
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.