ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2026
Suprapubic laparoscopic-assisted myomectomy.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive myomectomy offers significant perioperative benefits, including reduced pain and faster recovery. Current approaches include conventional laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), single-port LM, and mini-laparotomy. We developed a hybrid technique, termed suprapubic laparoscopic-assisted myomectomy (SLAM), that combines the superior visualization of laparoscopy with the tactile feedback and suturing efficiency of mini-laparotomy.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study evaluated the clinical rationale, safety, and feasibility of SLAM compared with conventional LM. Patients underwent conventional LM or SLAM according to patient preference following shared decision-making (SDM). Patients with a body mass index (BMI) >30 or myoma(s) >10 cm were excluded. All the procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t test (results presented as mean ± SD with 95% CI), the χ 2 test, or Fisher's exact test.
resultsThirty-six patients with symptomatic uterine myomas were included, with 16 undergoing SLAM and 20 undergoing conventional LM. The average hospitalization duration was 4.19 ± 0.40 days for SLAM and 4.15 ± 0.49 days for LM ( p = 0.807). The operative time was comparable between the SLAM and LM groups (186.0 ± 59.3 minutes vs 213.8 ± 48.8 minutes; p = 0.133). Although estimated blood loss was lower in the SLAM group (140.6 ± 148.3 mL vs 197.5 ± 223.1 mL; p = 0.387), the difference did not reach statistical significance. Hemoglobin decrease was also comparable (1.14 ± 1.63 mg/dL vs 1.06 ± 1.87 mg/dL; p = 0.897). The blood transfusion rates were 18.8% (3/16) for the SLAM group and 15.0% (3/20) for the LM group ( p = 1.000). No major complications were observed in either group.
conclusionSLAM is a safe and feasible alternative to conventional LM and offers effective myometrial closure and specimen retrieval. While operative outcomes are comparable to conventional LM, SLAM provides a viable "hybrid" option for surgeons seeking to combine minimally invasive benefits with the precision of manual suturing.
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.