ArticleIJU case reports2025
A Case of Bladder Perforation With Rectal Impalement Injury.
Article in IJU 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.
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
Introduction: Combined rectal impalement (RI) and bladder perforation (BP) is an extremely rare injury pattern, with limited case reports and no established consensus on their diagnosis and management. Case Presentation: A 50-year-old man sustained a perianal impalement injury caused by a metal rod at a construction site. He presented with perianal pain and gross hematuria (GH). Imaging revealed RI and extraperitoneal BP. A colostomy was performed on the same day as the injury, and transurethral coagulation of the bladder (TUC) was performed on the 6th day, during which a bladder mucosal defect was identified. Postoperatively, the GH reduced, and no persistent voiding or defecation dysfunction was observed. Conclusion: In patients with RI and GH, concomitant BP should be suspected. Although colostomy is almost always required for rectal injury, extraperitoneal BP can be cured with transurethral intervention and catheterization.
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.