ArticleCureus2026
Laparoscopic Management of an Intrauterine Device Perforating the Uterus and Adherent to the Rectum and Ovary: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
Management of intrauterine device (IUD) perforation can be complex when adjacent pelvic organs are involved. Laparoscopic removal is commonly performed; however, cases involving bowel adherence may require intraoperative assistance from additional surgical services. We report the case of a 31-year-old gravida 2, para 2 (G2P2) woman with a history of cesarean delivery who presented with pelvic pain five weeks postpartum and was found to have an IUD perforating the posterior uterine wall, with adherence to the rectum and left ovary. The patient underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic removal of the IUD. Gynecologic oncology was consulted intraoperatively due to availability and expertise in pelvic dissection to assist with the removal of the IUD from the colon, in collaboration with colorectal surgery. The device was removed intact; associated uterine and rectal defects were repaired, and hemostasis was achieved. The postoperative course was uncomplicated, with complete resolution of symptoms. Published literature describing robotic-assisted approaches for complex IUD perforation involving adjacent pelvic organs remains limited. This case contributes descriptive clinical experience regarding multidisciplinary, robotic-assisted management of complicated IUD migration.
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.