본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

In-bag power morcellation technique in single-port laparoscopic myomectomy

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류산부인과학

초록

Objective This study introduces and evaluates the feasibility, safety, and surgical outcomes of the in-bag power morcellationtechnique during single-port assisted (SPA) laparoscopic myomectomy in comparison with manual scalpelmorcellation. Methods This is a retrospective review of a total of 58 patients who underwent SPA laparoscopic myomectomy employingin-bag power morcellation (n=27) or manual scalpel morcellation (n=31), performed between December 2014 andDecember 2016. Surgical outcomes, including total operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hemoglobinchanges, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain (visual analog scale), perioperative and postoperativecomplications were evaluated. Results The demographics and patient characteristics were similar between both groups. The median patient age was 34years and median body mass index was 20.84 kg/m2. The median specimen weight was 110 g. The median operatingtime was 138 minutes. The median estimated blood loss was 50 mL and the median postoperative hemoglobin changewas 2.2 g/dL. The median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days and the median postoperative pain scores were 5after 6 hours, 3 after 24 hours, and 2 after 48 hours. Occult malignancy was not identified in any patients. There wereno intraoperative complications such as LapBag ruptures or gross spillage. Conclusion In-bag power morcellation for SPA laparoscopic myomectomy is feasible and safe, minimizing the risks of open powermorcellation. There were also no statistically significant differences in surgical outcomes.

Abstract

Objective This study introduces and evaluates the feasibility, safety, and surgical outcomes of the in-bag power morcellationtechnique during single-port assisted (SPA) laparoscopic myomectomy in comparison with manual scalpelmorcellation. Methods This is a retrospective review of a total of 58 patients who underwent SPA laparoscopic myomectomy employingin-bag power morcellation (n=27) or manual scalpel morcellation (n=31), performed between December 2014 andDecember 2016. Surgical outcomes, including total operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hemoglobinchanges, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain (visual analog scale), perioperative and postoperativecomplications were evaluated. Results The demographics and patient characteristics were similar between both groups. The median patient age was 34years and median body mass index was 20.84 kg/m2. The median specimen weight was 110 g. The median operatingtime was 138 minutes. The median estimated blood loss was 50 mL and the median postoperative hemoglobin changewas 2.2 g/dL. The median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days and the median postoperative pain scores were 5after 6 hours, 3 after 24 hours, and 2 after 48 hours. Occult malignancy was not identified in any patients. There wereno intraoperative complications such as LapBag ruptures or gross spillage. Conclusion In-bag power morcellation for SPA laparoscopic myomectomy is feasible and safe, minimizing the risks of open powermorcellation. There were also no statistically significant differences in surgical outcomes.

참고문헌 (23)

  1. Bhave Chittawar P, "Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids", Cochrane Database Syst Rev, pp.CD004638~ (2014)
  2. Nieboer TE, "Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease", Cochrane Database Syst Rev, pp.CD003677~ (2009)
  3. Wright KN, "Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies", JSLS, 16, pp.519~524 (2012)[DOI]
  4. Parker WH, "Indications for morcellation in gynecologic surgery", Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 30, pp.75~80 (2018)
  5. Steiner RA, "Electrical cutting device for laparoscopic removal of tissue from the abdominal cavity", Obstet Gynecol, 81, pp.471~474 (1993)
  6. Carter JE, "Laparoscopic myomectomy. Time and cost analysis of power vs. manual morcellation", J Reprod Med, 42, pp.383~388 (1997)
  7. Milad MP, "Laparoscopic morcellator-related complications", J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 21, pp.486~491 (2014)[DOI]
  8. Kho KA, "Evaluating the risks of electric uterine morcellation", JAMA, 311, pp.905~906 (2014)[DOI]
  9. Graebe K, "Incidental power morcellation of malignancy: a retrospective cohort study", Gynecol Oncol, 136, pp.274~277 (2015)[DOI]
  10. "Laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication" (2014)[URL]
  11. Yim GW, "Transumbilical single-port access versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcomes", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 203, pp.26.e1~26.e6 (2010)[DOI]
  12. Kho KA, "Intracorporeal electromechanical tissue morcellation: a critical review and recommendations for clinical practice", Obstet Gynecol, 124, pp.787~793 (2014)[DOI]
  13. Leren V, "Parasitic leiomyomas after laparoscopic surgery with morcellation", Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 91, pp.1233~1236 (2012)[DOI]
  14. Anupama R, "Disseminated peritoneal leiomyosarcomas after laparoscopic myomectomy and morcellation", J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 18, pp.386~389 (2011)[DOI]
  15. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide, "AAGL practice report: morcellation during uterine tissue extraction", J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 21, pp.517~530 (2014)[DOI]
  16. Nezhat F, "To morcellate or not to morcellate: a cross-sectional survey of gynecologic surgeons", JSLS, 21, pp.e2016.00092~ (2017)[DOI]
  17. Cohen SL, "Contained power morcellation within an insufflated isolation bag", Obstet Gynecol, 124, pp.491~497 (2014)[DOI]
  18. Serur E, "Extracorporeal manual morcellation of very large uteri within an enclosed endoscopic bag: our 5-year experience", J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 23, pp.903~908 (2016)[DOI]
  19. Srouji SS, "Techniques for contained morcellation in gynecologic surgery", Fertil Steril, 103, pp.e34~ (2015)
  20. Vargas MV, "Open power morcellation versus contained power morcellation within an insufflated isolation bag: comparison of perioperative outcomes", J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 22, pp.433~438 (2015)[DOI]
  21. Executive summary. Power morcellation and occult malignancy in gynecologic surgery: a special report, "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists", US Food and Drug Administration, ~ (2014)
  22. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, "AAGL statement to the FDA on power morcellation", American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, ~ (2014)
  23. US Food and Drug Administration, "FDA allows marketing of first-of-kind tissue containment system for use with certain laparoscopic power morcellators in select patients", US Food and Drug Administration, ~ (2016)

관련 논문AI추천

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: the feasibility in single-site system김미경, 김미라, 김미선, 배효숙, 성석주, 윤보성, 정용욱, 최수현, 홍소연대한산부인과학회 · Obstetrics & Gynecology Science2019 · 제62권 제1호Single port access laparoscopic fundusectomy, more efficient uterus-sparing surgical method for multiple fibroids in patient with no pregnancy planBo Ram Kim, Eun Jeong Kim, Jae Hyeok Jeong, Jeong Hye Yun, Ji Won Lee, Myoung Seok Han, Seung Yeon Oh, Yong Jung Song, Yoo Ri Kim대한산부인과학회 · Obstetrics & Gynecology Science2025 · 제68권 제6호Hybrid laparoscopic myomectomy: A novel technique박준숙, 양윤석, 오관영, 진찬희대한산부인과학회 · Obstetrics & Gynecology Science2015 · 제58권 제5호Long-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using a modified suture technique강민아, 김병기, 김지혜, 김태중, 배덕수, 이정원, 최철훈대한산부인과학회 · Obstetrics & Gynecology Science2020 · 제63권 제2호Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy versus Abdominal Myomectomy for Large Myomas Sized over 10 cm or Weighing 250 g김대연, 김성훈, 김영택, 김용만, 박정열, 서대식, 이사라, 이신화, 이영재, 이은실연세대학교의과대학 · Yonsei Medical Journal2020 · 제61권 제12호Robotic Single-Site Plus One-Port Myomectomy versus Robotic Single-Site Plus Two-Port Myomectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis김미경, 김미라, 성석주, 심소현, 원세연, 윤보성, 이나라, 전혜선, 정용욱, 최수현연세대학교의과대학 · Yonsei Medical Journal2024 · 제65권 제7호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)