ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Incarcerated prolapsed ureterocele masquerading as a vulvar mass after midurethral sling surgery: a case report with systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incarcerated prolapsed ureterocele (IPU) after midurethral sling (MUS) surgery is extremely rare and may be misdiagnosed as a vulvar or interlabial mass because of its atypical presentation and altered postoperative anatomy. Methods: We report the clinical presentation, multimodal ultrasonographic findings, surgical management, and follow-up of a patient with IPU after MUS surgery. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA framework using major medical databases to identify previously reported cases. Fifteen cases were identified from the literature; together with the present case, 16 cases were included in the analysis. Results: The patient presented with a vulvar mass after MUS surgery, and the diagnosis was difficult because of altered postoperative pelvic anatomy. Multimodal ultrasonography demonstrated a characteristic dumbbell sign, showing continuity between the intravesical and prolapsed components, and dynamically clarified the relationship between the prolapsed ureterocele and the sling in the postoperative setting. In the 16 included cases, prolapsed ureterocele was an uncommon but important differential diagnosis in women presenting with an interlabial or vulvar mass, especially when accompanied by urinary symptoms. Imaging was essential for diagnosis, and surgical treatment was generally associated with favorable outcomes. Conclusion: IPU after MUS surgery is a rare but clinically important condition that should be considered in the differential diagnosis of postoperative vulvar or interlabial masses. Multimodal ultrasonography can provide dynamic assessment of ureterocele anatomy and its relationship to the sling, while CT and MRI remain useful complementary modalities in selected cases.
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.