ArticleJournal of surgical case reports2026
Laparoscopic uterine-preserving management of ruptured pyometra using open drainage: a case report.
Article in Journal of surgical case reports, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ruptured pyometra is a rare but life-threatening condition that often presents with generalized peritonitis and septic shock, particularly in elderly patients. Although total hysterectomy with peritoneal lavage has traditionally been the standard treatment, it may impose excessive physiological stress in patients with poor general condition. We report a case of an elderly woman with ruptured pyometra who was treated with laparoscopic uterine-preserving management using open drainage. Intraoperatively, uterine perforations with purulent discharge were identified. Instead of closing the perforation, the uterine wall was intentionally incised to widely open the abscess cavity, allowing thorough irrigation of the uterine cavity and sustained drainage. This approach prioritized effective source control over anatomical repair. The postoperative course was favorable, and recurrent infection was successfully managed with additional minimally invasive drainage. This case suggests that laparoscopic open drainage without closure of uterine perforation may be a viable, life-saving option in selected high-risk patients.
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.