ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Safety evaluation of percutaneous intrauterine hydrodissection in microwave ablation of uterine fibroids adjacent to the endometrium.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous intrauterine hydrodissection as a protective technique during microwave ablation (MWA) of uterine fibroids adjacent to the endometrium. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent MWA with the percutaneous intrauterine hydrodissection strategy. The distribution of isolating fluid, the protective effect of intrauterine hydrodissection, its influence on ablation efficacy, and potential complications were assessed. Results: A total of 32 female patients were enrolled in the present study. The median age of the patients was 45 years old, with the median target uterine fibroid maximum diameter of 6.9 cm. Thirteen patients presented with fibroid-related symptoms. No evidence of fluid reflux into the pelvic cavity was detected during and after ablation on either CEUS or CT imaging. No case of residual tumor, infection, endometriosis, intestinal injury or bladder injury was observed during follow-up. Symptom improvement was observed in 69.2% (9/13) patients. No patient reported infertility due to intrauterine adhesion or endometrial injury after ablation. Conclusion: Percutaneous intrauterine hydrodissection is a safe and effective method for protecting endometrium during MWA of uterine fibroids adjacent to the endometrium.
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.