TY - JOUR
T1 - Penetration of the bladder by a perforating intrauterine contraceptive device
T2 - A sonographic diagnosis
AU - Caspi, B.
AU - Rabinerson, D.
AU - Appelman, Z.
AU - Kaplan, B.
PY - 1996/6
Y1 - 1996/6
N2 - We describe a case of penetration of the urinary bladder by an intrauterine contraceptive device with perforation of the uterine wall. This finding was discovered incidentally during an ultrasound examination for an earlier non-specific mild abdominal pain of short duration. No abnormality had been noted on pelvic examination, during which the device's strings were found to protrude through the patient's cervix; a short laboratory workup including urinalysis, urine culture, blood count and blood sedimentation rate was also negative. The sonographic diagnosis was confirmed by cystoscopy. The device was retrieved transcervically. No complications were observed on follow-up. Bladder perforation by an intrauterine contraceptive device is very rare, and only a handful of such cases have been described. In all previous cases, the diagnosis followed a rather prominent clinical presentation, whereas, in this case, the patient complained of intermittent low abdominal pain of short duration. We therefore suggest that pelvic ultrasound examination be performed in every patient with unexplained low abdominal pain who is known to carry an intrauterine contraceptive device.
AB - We describe a case of penetration of the urinary bladder by an intrauterine contraceptive device with perforation of the uterine wall. This finding was discovered incidentally during an ultrasound examination for an earlier non-specific mild abdominal pain of short duration. No abnormality had been noted on pelvic examination, during which the device's strings were found to protrude through the patient's cervix; a short laboratory workup including urinalysis, urine culture, blood count and blood sedimentation rate was also negative. The sonographic diagnosis was confirmed by cystoscopy. The device was retrieved transcervically. No complications were observed on follow-up. Bladder perforation by an intrauterine contraceptive device is very rare, and only a handful of such cases have been described. In all previous cases, the diagnosis followed a rather prominent clinical presentation, whereas, in this case, the patient complained of intermittent low abdominal pain of short duration. We therefore suggest that pelvic ultrasound examination be performed in every patient with unexplained low abdominal pain who is known to carry an intrauterine contraceptive device.
KW - Bladder
KW - Cystoscopy
KW - Intrauterine contraceptive device
KW - Perforation
KW - Ultrasound
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030158242&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07060458.x
DO - 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07060458.x
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:0030158242
VL - 7
SP - 458
EP - 460
JO - Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
JF - Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
SN - 0960-7692
IS - 6
ER -