ArticleCase reports in obstetrics and gynecology2026
A Challenging Case Report of Severe Asherman's Syndrome: Managing Uterine Perforation During Surgery.
Article in Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Challenging Case Report of Severe Asherman's Syndrome: Managing Uterine Perforation During Surgery.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Asherman's syndrome (AS), characterized by intrauterine adhesions (IUAs), can significantly distort uterine anatomy and complicate hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. Although hysteroscopic adhesiolysis is the standard treatment, severe adhesions increase the risk of complications such as uterine perforation. Case Illustration: We report a 31-year-old woman with severe AS who developed uterine perforation during hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. During dissection of dense adhesions, a small fundal perforation (0.5 cm × 0.5 cm) was suspected after sudden loss of resistance and bleeding. The procedure was immediately halted, and diagnostic laparoscopy confirmed a full-thickness fundal defect that was repaired laparoscopically. After stabilization, hysteroscopic management was resumed with placement of an amnion graft to promote endometrial regeneration. However, intraoperative bleeding recurred, and reassessment revealed enlargement of the perforation. Repeat laparoscopy confirmed a larger fundal defect, which was repaired with definitive laparoscopic hysterorrhaphy. The patient recovered uneventfully, received postoperative hormonal therapy, and resumed menstruation 1 month after surgery. Conclusion: This case highlights the risk of uterine perforation during adhesiolysis in severe AS and emphasizes the importance of early recognition and prompt laparoscopic management. Adjunctive guidance techniques and combined hysteroscopic-laparoscopic approaches may improve procedural safety and help preserve uterine integrity.
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.