ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Intraoperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Myomectomy in Women With Uterine Fibroids: A Retrospective Study at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Central India.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Myomectomy is a uterus-preserving surgery for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids desiring fertility. Comparing laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) and open myomectomy (OM) can help guide optimal surgical decisions. This study aimed (1) to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LM and OM, and (2) to identify clinical predictors influencing the choice of surgical approach in women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Methodology This prospective, comparative, non-randomized study included 80 women with symptomatic fibroids, consecutively sampled and allocated into LM (n = 40) and OM (n = 40) groups based on fibroid size, number, and surgeon decision. Outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, operative time, pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)), hospital stay, and time to resume normal activities. Data were analyzed using t-tests, linear and logistic regression, and repeated measures analysis of variance. Surgeons performing LM and OM had comparable experience, and outcome assessors were blinded to surgical groups. Results Mean fibroid size was significantly larger in the OM group (7.61 ± 1.32 cm) than in the LM group (4.81 ± 1.10 cm; p < 0.001). OM had greater intraoperative blood loss (278.25 ± 57.87 mL vs. 112.38 ± 33.29 mL; p < 0.001) and higher postoperative pain scores (6.70 ± 0.82 vs. 2.42 ± 0.93; p < 0.001), but shorter operative time (98.03 ± 15.67 vs. 133.47 ± 15.96 minutes; p < 0.001). LM patients had shorter hospital stays (2.08 ± 0.47 vs. 5.30 ± 1.27 days; p < 0.001) and resumed normal activities earlier (8.38 ± 2.26 vs. 16.10 ± 4.02 days; p < 0.001). Missing data were minimal (<2%) and handled using listwise deletion. All measurement instruments (e.g., NRS) were validated tools with cited references. Conclusions LM provides superior short-term outcomes, namely, less pain, lower blood loss, and shorter recovery, despite longer operative time. Surgical planning should consider fibroid size, surgeon expertise, and patient preference. Further prospective studies are needed for long-term outcome assessment.
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.