ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Vaginal morcellation through the posterior cul-de-sac using an electromechanical morcellator after laparoscopic myomectomy or subtotal hysterectomy: a retrospective, case-control study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of vaginal morcellation (VM) through the posterior cul-de-sac (PCDS) using an electromechanical morcellator and to compare the perioperative outcomes of VM with those of abdominal morcellation (AM) to remove a single myoma.
methodsThe characteristics of 245 consecutive patients who had undergone VM after laparoscopic myomectomy or subtotal hysterectomy were summarized. A retrospective, matched, case-control study was performed; 64 patients had a myoma weighting 100 g or more. Cases were matched with controls (ratio 1:2), who had undergone AM, by age, body mass index, specimen weight, surgical type, and surgeon. Body image questionnaires were used to assess the cosmetic outcome. Medians were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences between means were assessed using Student's t test. Dichotomous groupings were analyzed using either the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.
resultsAll 245 patients underwent VM without complications. The mean weight of the specimens was 197.2 g (range 78.5-1477 g), and the mean duration of morcellation was 13.0 min (range 2.0-45.0 min). Two hours after surgery, the visual analog scale (VAS) score was significantly lower in the VM group than in the AM group (P = 0.03). Moreover, the morcellator used was significantly larger in the VM group (P < 0.001), and morcellation duration was significantly shorter in the VM group (P < 0.001). Finally, cosmetic outcome was significantly better in the VM group (P < 0.02). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of hospitalization duration, surgery duration or VAS score 24 and 47 h postoperatively.
conclusionVM through the PCDS using an electromechanical morcellator is a safe and feasible technique for surgical excision. The benefits of the procedure over AM are reduced immediate postoperative pain, shorter morcellation time, and better cosmesis.
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.