Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41444772›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

Three-dimensional printing model-assisted single-port laparoscopic multiple myomectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Yuan-Hong Li, Ning Xu, Yuan-Qin Gou, Meng-Xi Li, Min Li

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yuan-Hong LiDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Integrated TCM & Western Medicine Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, Sichuan, China.
Ning XuDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Integrated TCM & Western Medicine Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, Sichuan, China. 609074657@qq.com.
Yuan-Qin GouDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Integrated TCM & Western Medicine Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, Sichuan, China.
Meng-Xi LiDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Integrated TCM & Western Medicine Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, Sichuan, China.
Min LiDepartment of Gynecology, Chengdu Integrated TCM & Western Medicine Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, Sichuan, China.

Funding

the Medical Scientific Research Project of Chengdu City Grant No. 2024400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple uterine fibroids present significant surgical challenges in single-port laparoscopic myomectomy, particularly regarding optimal removal sequence and surgical planning. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offers potential advantages for preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance. We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing 3D printing model-assisted single-port laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional surgery in women with multiple uterine fibroids. The primary endpoints were total operative time and estimated blood loss. Secondary endpoints included surgeon workload assessment using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), patient satisfaction, surgical complications, and long-term follow-up outcomes including fibroid residual and recurrence rates. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 3D model-assisted surgery or conventional surgery using computer-generated randomization with concealed allocation. Sample size was calculated based on an expected 20-minute reduction in operative time with 80% power and α = 0.05. Of 140 patients assessed for eligibility, 133 were randomized and 110 completed the per-protocol analysis (55 in each group). In the per-protocol analysis of 110 patients, the 3D model group had significantly shorter total operative time (mean difference, 25.7 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.7 to 33.7; P = 0.001) and modestly reduced estimated blood loss (mean difference, 24.4 ml; 95% CI, 5.1 to 43.7; P = 0.050). The 3D model group also showed significant improvements in surgeon workload scores (mean difference, 10.1 points; 95% CI, 6.7 to 13.6; P < 0.001) and patient satisfaction (mean difference, 1.8 points; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001). Hospital stay duration was similar between groups (4.5 ± 0.3 vs. 4.4 ± 0.3 days; P = 0.100). At 1-year follow-up, fibroid recurrence rates were lower in the 3D model group (1.8% vs. 12.7%; P = 0.060), and immediate postoperative residual fibroid rates were reduced (1.8% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.363). No conversions to open surgery occurred in either group, and complication rates were similar (5.5% vs. 14.5%; P = 0.202). Surgical plan adherence analysis demonstrated significantly higher protocol adherence in the 3D model group (87.3% vs. 65.5% exact sequence match; P = 0.002). In this single-center trial, 3D printing model-assisted single-port laparoscopic myomectomy significantly improved surgical efficiency and reduced surgeon workload while maintaining excellent safety profiles. The 3D model group demonstrated significantly higher surgical plan adherence compared with conventional planning. While favorable trends were observed in fibroid residual and recurrence outcomes, these findings did not achieve statistical significance and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. These results require validation in multicenter trials before broader clinical implementation.Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) under the registration number ChiCTR2500112904, with the first registration on November 20, 2025 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=287706 ).

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLeiomyomaPrinting, Three-DimensionalUterine MyomectomyUterine NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOperative TimePatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeMultiple myomectomySingle-port laparoscopic myomectomyThree-dimensional (3D) printing

Identifiers

PMID41444772
PMCPMC12847862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.