ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
Subtle presentation of complete uterine rupture in a scarred uterus: a case report.
Article in International journal of surgery 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Uterine rupture is a rare but serious obstetric complication, most often associated with a scarred uterus following cesarean delivery. Although uterine rupture classically presents with acute abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, and fetal distress, atypical manifestations may delay recognition and heighten maternal and fetal risk. Case presentation: We report a 25-year-old gravida 2 para 1 woman with a prior lower-segment cesarean section who presented with a 14-hour history of vague abdominal discomfort and minimal vaginal bleeding, accompanied by cessation of fetal movements. Ultrasonography demonstrated placental remnants within the uterus and a deceased fetus in the abdominal cavity, consistent with complete uterine rupture. Hemodynamic and laboratory parameters remained stable. Emergency laparotomy confirmed rupture of the previous cesarean scar with extrusion of the fetus and placenta. The uterine defect was repaired, and the patient recovered uneventfully. Discussion: Uterine rupture may present with atypical findings such as mild abdominal pain or scant bleeding, which can complicate diagnosis. Evaluation should consider differential diagnoses including placenta previa, placental abruption, or spontaneous abortion. Ultrasonography can reveal uterine wall disruption, free intraperitoneal fluid, or extrauterine fetal parts, thereby aiding confirmation in stable patients. Prompt laparotomy with uterine repair or hysterectomy remains the cornerstone of management, underscoring the need for vigilance even in hemodynamically stable presentations. Conclusion: This case underscores the diagnostic challenges of uterine rupture in hemodynamically stable patients with atypical symptoms and highlights the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion while ensuring timely surgical intervention to mitigate maternal morbidity and mortality.
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.