ArticleCase reports in obstetrics and gynecology2026
Three Concurrent Nonpalpable Nexplanon Implants in the Upper Arms Following Presumed Failed Insertions: A Case Report.
Article in Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology, 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
Introduction: Subdermal etonogestrel implants (Nexplanon) are a widely used form of long-acting reversible contraception, providing up to 5 years of pregnancy prevention. Their ease of outpatient insertion and high efficacy have contributed to their widespread use. However, correct subdermal placement and immediate postinsertion confirmation of palpability are essential to ensure proper positioning and facilitate future localization and removal. Case Presentation: We report the case of a 42-year-old G1P1001 patient who was ultimately found to have three nonpalpable concurrent Nexplanon implants in both upper arms following multiple presumed failed insertion attempts over several years. On several occasions, newly placed implants were not palpable after insertion and were assumed to represent failed deployment, leading to repeat insertions without imaging confirmation. At presentation to our institution, high-frequency ultrasound identified a total of three nonpalpable, but superfascial, implants: two in the left upper arm and one in the right upper arm. All devices were successfully localized and removed in an outpatient setting using ultrasound-guided techniques without complication. Discussion: Nonpalpable contraceptive implants most commonly result from deep insertion into subcutaneous, fascial, or intramuscular tissue. Most published reports describe single retained implants managed with high-frequency ultrasound as the first-line modality for localization and removal. This case is unique in demonstrating the cumulative consequence of repeated misinterpretation of nonpalpability as failed insertion, resulting in multiple retained devices across both upper arms. It highlights a critical gap in procedural verification and reinforces the importance of standardized postinsertion confirmation protocols.
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.