ArticleThe American journal of case reports2026
Intraluminal Appendiceal Migration of an Intrauterine Device Without Appendicitis: A Case Report.
Article in The American journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The intrauterine device (IUD) is a commonly used contraceptive method in emerging countries, such as Mexico and several Latin American nations. IUD insertion is a well-described and relatively simple procedure; however, one of its rare complications is migration to nearby extrauterine structures. CASE REPORT The patient was a 37-year-old woman with a history of cesarean delivery 5 years earlier. After an abortion managed by instrumental uterine curettage in 2024, a copper intrauterine device (IUD) was placed, with no immediate complications. However, 1 month later, she experienced intermittent mild cramping in the lower abdomen, which intensified 1 year later (2025) and for which she sought medical evaluation. The initial examination included a pelvic ultrasound, which revealed the absence of the IUD within the uterine cavity. After a hysteroscopy and computed tomography (CT), the gynecology and obstetrics department performed an exploratory laparotomy. The transoperative findings were as follows: right iliac fossa with displaced IUD, whose arms were located in the right fimbria, while the body of the device was apparently visible within the appendicular lumen. The cecal appendix showed no macroscopic evidence of pathology. The patient's progress was satisfactory, with no immediate or delayed complications. CONCLUSIONS This case is the first record in the medical and scientific literature in which the IUD was found intraluminally in the appendix, without macroscopic or clinical data of acute appendicitis. This case also highlights the need for early diagnosis and timely treatment of seemingly rare conditions, to reduce complications arising from procedures considered routine, such as IUD insertion.
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.