An unsuspected case of uterine arteriovenous malformation with nidus aneurysm following vaginal delivery: Diagnostic challenges and management.

Aakanksha Nautiyal, Abhiram Ps, Chanabasappa V Chavadi

Abstract readCase Reports

In one paragraph

Article in Radiology case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aakanksha NautiyalDepartment of Radio diagnosis, Manipal Hospital Sarjapur, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Abhiram PsDepartment of Radio diagnosis, Manipal Hospital Sarjapur, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Chanabasappa V ChavadiDepartment of Radio diagnosis, Manipal Hospital Sarjapur, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uterine arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are rare but potentially life-threatening cause of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Accurate differentiation from other PPH causes, such as retained products of conception (RPOC) and gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), is imperative, as inadvertent improper management such as uterine curettage may cause catastrophic bleeding with high mortality rates. We present the case of 35-year-old woman who presented with excessive vaginal bleeding 2 months postnormal vaginal delivery. Initial ultrasound findings raised suspicion of uterine AVM with a differential diagnosis of type 3 RPOC. Further imaging with computed tomography angiography (CTA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) confirmed an underlying uterine AVM with a nidus aneurysm. The patient subsequently was treated with successful embolization and was discharged in stable condition.

Indexed as

Differential diagnosis in postpartum hemorrhageGestational trophoblastic diseaseNidus aneurysmPostpartum hemorrhageRetained products of conceptionUterine arteriovenous malformation

Identifiers

PMID40129827

DOI10.1016/j.radcr.2025.01.006

PMCPMC11932652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.