ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2025
Caesarean scar endometriosis involving the uterine wall.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis in a surgical scar is a rare but important clinical phenomenon that can lead to significant morbidity, especially in women with a history of caesarean sections. We present a case of a 35-year-old woman with chronic right iliac fossa pain and prolonged, heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) with minimal improvement after hormonal treatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill. She had undergone two prior caesarean deliveries, and imaging raised the suspicion of utero-abdominal wall scar endometriosis at the site of the previous uterine incision. Intraoperative findings confirmed a mass extending from the abdominal wall into the uterine scar. The lesion was completely excised, and histopathology confirmed endometriosis. Post-surgical recovery was uneventful, with resolution of pain and HMB. This case highlights the importance of considering scar endometriosis in the differential diagnosis of abdominal wall masses and pain in patients following caesarean section, and underscores that surgical excision can be curative.
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.