ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2025
Intrauterine device migration into the bladder with urolithiasis: A case report.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nephroscopic management of partial bladder perforation by an intrauterine device with extravesical main body: a case report and treatment-oriented classification.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Approach to Intrauterine Device Migration Into the Bladder Using Holmium Laser.Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntrauterine devices (IUDs) are the contraceptive method of choice for many women across the globe. Extrauterine migration of IUDs is a rare complication, with the intravesical location and vesical stone formation being an exceptional event. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 39-year-old woman with a history of IUD insertion four years prior to the onset of lower urinary tract symptoms consisting mainly of dysuria and pollakiuria. A migrated device was discovered in the bladder, resulting in stone formation. The bladder stone was successfully treated using laser lithotripsy with an uncomplicated recovery and the resolution of all symptoms at further check-up. DISCUSSION: IUD intravesical migration with stone formation around the device is a rare but noteworthy complication of the contraceptive method, especially in the context of recurring urinary tract symptoms. Ultrasonography and standard radiography can be helpful tools in diagnosing device migration. Treatment options can differ, with laser lithotripsy being a minimally invasive and efficient method to treat the resulting calculus around the migrated device and for device extraction. Post-operative follow-up should focus on symptom resolution as well as the presence of fistulae.
conclusionWhile IUDs remain an efficient and accessible method of contraception, complications including device migration into the bladder with or without stone formation should be considered, particularly in the context of recurring lower urinary tract symptoms, and should be treated immediately to avoid further complications.
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.