ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
An analysis of the surgical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy and multi-port laparoscopic myomectomy.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of efficacy of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic treatment for uterine leiomyoma: a latest meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of barbed suture and conventional suture in laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical Efficacy of Acupuncture in the Treatment of Uterine Contraction Pain Post-Cesarean Section: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Single-Port Versus Conventional Multiport Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Retrospective Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS): A Shift in Gynecological Minimally Invasive Surgery.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study sought to compare the surgical results of patients undergoing a laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy (LESS-M) and a conventional laparoscopic myomectomy (CLM) at our hospital.
methodsThe basic data of 233 patients undergoing LESS-M and 233 patients undergoing CLM at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University were collected from January 2018 to January 2020, and the results of the operations were compared by evaluating a number of factors, including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative fever, and postoperative maximum body temperature.
resultsThe operation times of the LESS-M and CLM groups were 83.9±33.4 and 75.2±26.7 min, respectively; the difference between the groups was statistically significant. The surgical blood loss of the LESS-M group was 86.1±76.9 mL, and that of the CLM group was 83.8±79.9 mL (P>0.05). When the diameter of a fibroid was ≥8 cm, a fibroid was located in the posterior wall or the number of fibroids was ≥4, the operation time of the CLM group was shorter than that of the LESS-M group. When the diameter of a fibroid was ≥8 cm, the blood loss of the CLM group was less than that of the LESS-M group.
conclusionsLESS-M is safe and feasible. If the diameter of a fibroid is ≥8 cm, the fibroid is located in the posterior wall, or the number of fibroids is ≥4, the utility of single-port surgery should be carefully considered.
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.