Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 15;2014(8):CD005355. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005355.pub5

Vercellino 2012.

Methods Randomised controlled trial with 80 participants assigned to receive laparoscopic uterine artery clipping and myomectomy, while 86 participants received laparoscopic myomectomy only
Study conducted in three centres in Germany from January 2007 to December 2009
Power calculation performed
Participants Women between the ages of 18 and 50 years with the diagnosis symptomatic uterine myomas and who had a combined diameter of
≥ 4cm were included into the study. Patients with severe accompanying medical problems, or psychiatric illnesses, which jeopardize participation, or undergoing treatment affecting coagulation and/or hematopoiesis, and patients with suspected malignancy were excluded
Ethnicity not described
Interventions All patients had laparoscopic myomectomy. The intervention group (Group A) had temporary bilateral clipping of uterine arteries during myomectomy using Yasargil vascular clips and the control group (Group B) received no additional treatment
Outcomes Outcomes measured were haemoglobin drop, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, need for blood transfusion and complications
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random sequence generation by computer‐generated random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Patients allocated to study group temporary clipping of bilateral uterine arteries, Group A) and control (Group B) by means of sealed sequentially numbered brown envelopes containing computer‐generated random numbers
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No incomplete outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk We do not have access to the study protocol
Other bias Low risk No other sources of bias identified
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Randomisation was done the day before the surgery and patients were blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No information