ArticleJournal of reproduction & infertility
Accessory Cavitated Uterine Mass: A Diagnostic Dilemma Illustrated by Three Case Reports.
Article in Journal of reproduction & infertility. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accessory cavitated uterine mass (ACUM) is a rare, unclassified Müllerian anomaly characterized by distinct imaging features. It is typically located within the uterus, close to the round ligament, and has a uterus-like structural arrangement. The patient may present with pelvic pain or dysmenorrhea. Most of these cases are misdiagnosed because of a lack of awareness about this unusual entity. Case Presentation: Three cases of ACUM in young patients who experienced prolonged symptoms and had incomplete family structures were reported in this paper. Initially, two of these cases were misdiagnosed during ultrasound examinations (USG). The subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed characteristic imaging features consistent with ACUM, which provided significant psychological relief to both the patients and their families. Two patients received hormonal therapy, both of whom were unmarried. The third patient, however, indicated a wish to conceive and was therefore initiated on analgesics. All three patients chose to forgo surgical intervention, opting instead for medical management despite its limited success in alleviating their symptoms. This decision was made to minimize obstetric risks associated with surgical interventions in potential future pregnancies. Conclusion: Laparoscopy or open surgery is the mainstay treatment for a permanent relief from the symptoms. However, surgical treatment should be offered with caution as no data are available in medical literature regarding the effect of surgically induced myometrial scarring on patients' reproductive outcomes. Since most of these patients were young and nulligravida, the therapy had to be personalized in accordance with the patient's preference and family status.
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.