ArticleFrontiers in urology2026
Case Report: Urachal calculus with an atypical intravesical CT appearance and literature review.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Urachal calculi are uncommon complications of urachal remnants. Their clinical and radiological appearances overlap with bladder calculi, vesicourachal diverticula, infected urachal cysts, and calcified urachal tumors, creating a potential diagnostic pitfall. Case description: A 54-year-old man presented with intermittent lower abdominal pain lasting more than six months without hematuria, dysuria, umbilical discharge, fever, or other lower urinary tract symptoms. Cystoscopy at a local hospital showed bladder inflammation but no stone. In our hospital, computed tomography demonstrated a 1.2 x 0.9 cm densely calcified lesion (approximately 1112 HU) at the junction of the bladder dome and anterior wall. The lesion appeared to lie within the bladder outline and initially mimicked a bladder diverticular calculus. Repeat cystoscopy at our institution identified a partially intravesical calculus with a component embedded in the urachal tract. The intravesical component was fragmented using a holmium laser, followed by laparoscopic partial cystectomy and en bloc excision of the urachal remnant and residual calculus. Histopathological examination showed an inflamed urachal remnant without intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, or malignancy. The urinary catheter was removed after 2 days, and the patient was discharged after a 7-day hospitalization. Post-discharge recurrence could not be assessed because the patient was lost to follow-up. Conclusion: A midline calcification at the bladder dome should prompt consideration of a urachal origin even when it appears intravesical. Multiplanar CT assessment, systematic inspection of the bladder dome, and histological evaluation of the excised remnant are important for diagnosis and management.
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.