ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
The "Lost" and "Found" IUD: a case of concurrent intrauterine and intraperitoneal devices with delayed recognition.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are widely used and highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives; however, rare complications such as uterine perforation and device migration may occur. A critical and preventable clinical pitfall is the misinterpretation of missing retrieval strings as spontaneous expulsion, which may lead to reinsertion without imaging confirmation, resulting in dual IUD retention, delayed diagnosis, and potential complications including visceral organ injury. Case presentation: We report a case of a 45-year-old woman with an incidental finding of dual IUDs. Imaging revealed one device within the uterine cavity and a second device that had migrated intraperitoneally. Laparoscopic retrieval was successful, and the postoperative course was uneventful. Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of the systematic evaluation of "missing" IUD strings, including a pelvic examination and radiographic confirmation prior to reinsertion to prevent dual-device scenarios and associated morbidity. Early recognition, prompt imaging, and minimally invasive surgical management are essential for optimal outcomes.
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.