ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Hysteroscopic surgery for treating intramural fibroids at the cesarean scar area: a case report and literature review.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Uterine fibroids located at cesarean section scar sites are rare and differ clinically from conventional fibroids, frequently causing abnormal uterine bleeding and infertility. Traditional surgical approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy, or vaginal surgery) necessitate incision of the scar site, resulting in significant tissue damage. We present a successful case of hysteroscopic resection for such fibroids, demonstrating the minimally invasive advantages of this approach. Case summary: A 49-year-old multiparous woman with a history of cesarean delivery presented with a 2-year history of menorrhagia and prolonged menstrual cycles, exacerbated over the preceding month. Gynecological ultrasound revealed heterogeneous hypoechogenicity within the cervical canal, measuring approximately 5.3 cm × 3.5 cm × 3.3 cm in size. The physical examination revealed an enlarged uterus, approximately the size of 11 cm × 8 cm × 7 cm. Hematologic workup showed the hemoglobin (HGB) level of 65 g/L. Based on these examination results, a clinical diagnosis of "uterine fibroids, secondary anemia" was conducted. Hysteroscopy examination showed that the base of the uterine fibroid was attached to the scar site of the original cesarean section, without a pedicle, and the main body of the fibroid remained in the cervical canal-intraoperative definitive diagnosis: intramural fibroids at the scar site of the uterus. Therefore, a hysteroscopic approach with a bipolar resectoscope was used to remove the intramural fibroids in the scar area of the uterus. The procedure consumed 22,000 ml of fluid distension media (0.9% NaCl) and lasted for 1 h and 45 min. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was uterine leiomyoma, consistent with the preoperative diagnosis. A follow-up was conducted 3 months after surgery, and a gynecological ultrasound examination showed complete removal of uterine fibroids. Conclusion: This case confirmed that hysteroscopic resection of cesarean scar intramural fibroids is a feasible, safe, and minimally invasive approach.
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.