Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The subdermal single-rod contraceptive implant is used by more than one million women worldwide. In México there are ~ 600,000 colocated implants. Cases of complex implant localization caused by a deep insertion procedure have been reported.
Clinical Cases: Two clinical cases of implant with complex localization are presented. Case 1: we present a 21-year-old female. After the insertion procedure during the 12-, 24-, and 36-month revisions, the implant could not be located. Case 2: we present a 28-year-old female with subdermal single-rod contraceptive implant co-located in the external side of the left arm, partially palpable on the extreme distal area. Transverse cut of ultrasound showed the extreme distal area of the implant at 6 and 7 cm, respectively, at the site of insertion (scar).
Conclusions: Due to simplicity and accessibility, ultrasound is the selected method for identifying deep nonpalpable implants.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!