Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Feasibility and safety of 4DryField
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility and safety of the hemostatic powder 4DryField® PH in laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy and its impact on fertility compared to conventional bipolar electrocautery.
methodsThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center, single-blind pilot study, included in the german registry for clinical trials (DRKS-ID: DRKS00038742). The study was developed in the. Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, Germany. Twenty women (≥ 18 years old) undergoing laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy for benign ovarian lesions with baseline serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≥ 2.0 ng/mL were enrolled and randomized equally to two hemostatic methods. Hemostasis was achieved using either bipolar electrocautery (n = 10) or topical 4DryField® PH powder (n = 10). Both groups underwent standardized laparoscopic cystectomy performed by experienced surgeons. Serum AMH, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT), white blood cell counts, hemoglobin and hematocrit were assessed preoperatively, on postoperative day (POD) 1, and POD 14.
resultsBaseline AMH levels were comparable between groups (4.54 ± 2.24 ng/mL vs. 4.39 ± 2.08 ng/mL, p = 0.85). By POD 14, the mean percent decline in AMH from baseline was smaller in the 4DryField group than in the electrocautery group (mean difference = 16.77%; 95% CI: -5.39 to 38.93). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.36), with an estimated effect size of d= 0.72 (95% CI: -0.19 to 1.62). IL-6 increased transiently on POD 1 in the 4DryField group (9.2 pg/mL [IQR 78.6] vs. 3.85 pg/mL [IQR 2.80]; p = 0.016) but normalized by POD 14, indicating a short, non-pathologic inflammatory response. No significant differences were observed in CRP, PCT, or leukocyte counts. No adverse events, infections, or hemorrhagic complications occurred in either group.
conclusionIn this pilot study, the use of 4DryField® PH appears feasible and safe for laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. While the reduction in AMH levels was numerically smaller in the 4DryField group, the difference was not statistically significant. These results are hypothesis-generating and underscore the need for larger trials to evaluate the potential benefits of non-thermal hemostatic strategies for ovarian reserve preservation.
trial registrationClinical trial; DRKS00038742.
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.