Trial reportBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Recovery After Transcervical Fibroid Ablation Versus Minimally Invasive Myomectomy for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate early recovery outcomes with transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA) compared to minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM) in women with symptomatic uterine fibroids.
designRandomised controlled trial.
settingTübingen University Hospital (Tübingen, Germany). SAMPLE: Premenopausal women aged 18-50 years with symptomatic uterine fibroids.
methodsParticipants were randomised to undergo TFA or MIM. The MIM group underwent laparoscopic myomectomy with concurrent hysteroscopic myomectomy if submucosal fibroids were present.
main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was the time to return to normal activities. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, postprocedural pain, hospital discharge readiness, time to return to 10 additional activities of daily living, and adverse events. Clinical outcomes through 7 weeks of follow-up were reported. The primary endpoint was evaluated at p < 0.028 due to a pre-planned interim analysis; secondary outcomes were evaluated at p < 0.05.
resultsAmong 144 randomised patients, 119 provided follow-up data (58 TFA; 61 MIM). The primary endpoint was met with the median time to return to normal activities favouring TFA (5.5 vs. 13 days; log-rank p < 0.001). Procedure time (51 ± 21 vs. 95 ± 37 min; p < 0.001), postprocedural pain through discharge (all p < 0.01), opioid utilisation (25.9% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.009), and time to discharge readiness (22.9 ± 13.2 vs. 58.9 ± 33.1 h; p < 0.001) favoured TFA. Nine of 10 treatment recovery metrics statistically favoured TFA with none favouring MIM. One serious adverse event occurred in a patient treated with MIM (diagnostic laparoscopy for postoperative bleeding).
conclusionsTFA offers a faster recovery than MIM for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids, with a comparable short-term safety profile.
trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered on the German Clinical Trials Register; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028847.
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.