ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in uterine fibroids following high intensity focused ultrasound ablation vs. laparoscopic myomectomy: a propensity score-matched observational study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
Purpose: To compare the pregnancy outcomes of patients with uterine fibroids (UFs) who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) vs. laparoscopic myomectomy (LM). Materials and methods: Patients with UFs and fertility undergoing HIFU or LM from January 2020 to June 2023 were included into this retrospective study. The primary outcomes were pregnancy outcomes including the natural pregnancy rate and the median time to pregnancy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to evaluate the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes were the risk factors for natural pregnancy among patients with UFs receiving HIFU or LM. Results: In total, 171 patients were recruited in the HIFU group, while 122 in the LM group. Of them, 60 cases (60/293; 20.5%) achieved pregnancy, including 43 receiving HIFU whereas 17 undergoing LM. After PSM, 75 pairs were acquired. Difference in natural pregnancy rates was not statistically significant between the two groups (HIFU vs. LM: 13.3% vs. 14.7%; Conclusions: HIFU demonstrated comparable postoperative pregnancy rates to LM and was associated with a shorter median time to pregnancy, suggesting that HIFU may be a potential fertility-sparing treatment for women with UFs. Additionally, age and the classification of main fibroids were identified as the independent factors influencing postoperative pregnancy rates in patients undergoing treatment.
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.