ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
An asymptomatic postmenopausal uterine perforation with bilateral embedment by a V-shaped intrauterine device: a case report.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Retained intrauterine devices (IUDs) after menopause are common in China, yet their complications may be clinically silent. Uterine atrophy and rigid open-frame designs can permit gradual transmural erosion, leading to seemingly routine removal requests that conceal high-risk extrauterine involvement. Case presentation: A 54-year-old asymptomatic postmenopausal woman presented for elective IUD removal. Transvaginal ultrasound suggested deep myometrial embedment with suspected serosal extension. During hysteroscopy, the device could be grasped but exhibited extreme traction resistance, raising concern for transmural perforation; the procedure was immediately converted to laparoscopy. Laparoscopy revealed a rare dual-site extrauterine embedment: one arm perforated the posterior uterine wall and was embedded in the pelvic peritoneum adjacent to the left ureter, while the contralateral arm traversed the fundus and was completely impacted within the right tubal isthmus. Right therapeutic salpingectomy and opportunistic contralateral salpingectomy were performed. Under laparoscopic visualization, the IUD was then safely retrieved through the uterine cavity with hysteroscopic guidance. The postoperative course was uneventful. Conclusion: This case illustrates that postmenopausal IUD retention can culminate in severe, multi-organ-adjacent perforation without symptoms, and that ultrasound may underestimate the extent of extrauterine involvement. In hysteroscopic IUD removal, "extreme traction resistance" should be treated as an intraoperative red-flag prompting immediate cessation and conversion to laparoscopy. A combined hysteroscopic-laparoscopic strategy enables controlled dissection, organ protection, particularly the ureter and tube, and complete retrieval with minimal uterine trauma.
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.