ArticleCase reports in pathology2026
Segmental Absence of Intestinal Musculature in Adults: A Report of Five Cases Among 86 Intestinal Perforations.
Article in Case reports in pathology, 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.
- Segmental Absence of Intestinal Musculature in Adults: A Report of Five Cases Among 86 Intestinal Perforations.Case reports in pathology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among 86 adult patients who underwent surgery for intestinal perforation, excluding cases caused by cancer invasion or appendicitis, diverticulitis (33/86, 38%) was identified as the most common cause of perforation, followed by ischaemia (7/86, 8%) and segmental absence of intestinal musculature (SAIM) (5/86, 6%). In patients with SAIM-related perforation, the site of perforation was the sigmoid colon in four cases and the caecum in one. SAIM-related perforation occurred predominantly in older women and most frequently involved the sigmoid colon. The four patients with sigmoid colon perforation showed an abrupt loss of the muscularis propria. In the patient with caecal perforation, the muscularis propria exhibited separation and thinning with focal complete loss. Secondary inflammation or haemorrhage associated with the perforation was observed in the bowel wall surrounding the perforation site. However, there was no evidence of primary suppurative inflammation or necrosis causing of perforation. Given that the prevalence of SAIM among patients with bowel perforation appeared to be higher than previously assumed, it is essential to histologically examine sufficient tissue samples to avoid missing this diagnosis. Recognition of SAIM is clinically important, especially in adults without previous or current evidence of intestinal disease, as it should be considered a possible cause of intestinal perforation, thereby facilitating early diagnosis and prompt treatment.
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.