The role of power morcellation in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery
Authors:
B. Boudová 1,2
; A. Richtárová 1
; Filip Frühauf 1
; Daniela Fischerová 1
; Michal Mára 1
Authors place of work:
Gynekologicko porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze
1; Gynekologicko-porodnické oddělení, Oblastní nemocnice Trutnov a. s.
2
Published in the journal:
Ceska Gynekol 2022; 87(4): 289-294
Category:
Review Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg2022289
Summary
Objective: To summarize recent data and knowledge of laparoscopic power morcellation. Methods: Review of articles. Results: Laparoscopic morcellation has been introduced to gynecologic surgery in 90’s. In 2014, Food and Drug Administration announced negative statement about the morcellation use due to the risk of potential spreading of malignant tumor cells. This statement reduced utilization of morcellation, especially in the United States. Since that, many health institutions and organizations started new researches focused on the safety of this surgical technique. After a couple of years, the morcellation is considered as a useful tool if certain rules are followed. Conclusion: Morcellation has a place in laparoscopic operative procedures even in 2022, in condition of correct selection of patients and possible utilization of contained in-bag morcellation.
Keywords:
Hysterectomy – myomectomy – laparoscopy – morcellation
Zdroje
1. Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174 (2): 654–658. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378 (96) 70445-3.
2. Silva BA, Falcone T, Bradley L et al. Case-control study of laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2000; 10 (4): 191–197. doi: 10.1089/1092 64200421568.
3. Wiser A, Holcroft CA, Tulandi T et al. Abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign diseases: evaluation of morbidity and mortality among 465,798 cases. Gynecol Surg 2013; 10: 117–122. doi: 10.1007/s10397-013-0781-9.
4. Semm K. New methods of pelviscopy (gynecologic laparoscopy) for myomectomy, ovariectomy, tubectomy and adnectomy. Endoscopy 1979; 11 (2): 85–93. doi: 10.1055/s-00 28-1098329.
5. Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015 (8): CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
6. Steiner RA, Wight E, Tadir Y et al. Electrical cutting device for laparoscopic removal of tissue from the abdominal cavity. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81 (3): 471–474.
7. Milad MP, Milad EA. Laparoscopic morcellator-related complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21 (3): 486–491. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.003.
8. Kamp J, Burton TM. How FDA approved hysterectomy tools it now disfavors. Wall Street Journal. 2014 [online]. Available from: https: //www.wsj.com/articles/how-fda-approved-hysterectomy-tools-it-now-disfavors-1418700 781.
9. Bose D. Fate of laparoscopic morcellation post-FDA warning: a literature review. Int J Med Res Rev 2016; 4 (10): 1871–1878. doi: 10.17511/ijmrr.2016.i10.26.
10. Laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA Safety Communication. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration. 2014 [online]. Available from: https: //wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722215727/https: //www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm424443.htm.
11. Tulandi T, Leung A, Jan N. Nonmalignant sequelae of unconfined morcellation at laparoscopic hysterectomy or myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (3): 331–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.017.
12. Van der Meulen JF, Pijnenborg JM, Booms- ma CM et al. Parasitic myoma after laparoscopic morcellation: a systematic review of the literature. BJOG 2016; 123 (1): 69–75. doi: 10.1111/ 1471-0528.13541.
13. Šišovská I, Minář L, Felsinger M et al. Novinky ve FIGO stagingu karcinomu ovaria, tuby a peritonea. Ceska Gynekol 2017; 82 (3): 230–236.
14. Ludovisi M, Moro F, Pasciuto T et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (15): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of uterine sarcoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54 (5): 676–687. doi: 10.1002/uog.20270.
15. Sun S, Bonaffini PA, Nougaret S et al. How to differentiate uterine leiomyosarcoma from leiomyoma with imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging 2019; 100 (10): 619–634. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2019.07.007.
16. Van den Bosch T, Dueholm M, Leone FP et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46 (3): 284–298. doi: 10.1002/uog.14 806.
17. Kawamura N, Ichimura T, Ito F et al. Transcervical needle biopsy for the differential diag- nosis between uterine sarcoma and leiomyoma. Cancer 2002; 94 (6): 1713–1720. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10382.
18. Halaska MJ, Haidopoulos D, Guyon F et al. ESGO Council. European Society of Gynecological Oncology statement on fibroid and uterine morcellation. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27 (1): 189–192. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000 911.
19. Hinchcliff EM, Esselen KM, Watkins JC et al. The role of endometrial biopsy in the preoperative detection of uterine leiomyosarcoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (4): 567–572. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.022.
20. Stewart EA, Cookson CL, Gandolfo RA et al. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids: a systematic review. BJOG 2017; 124 (10): 1501–1512. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14640.
21. Hosh M, Antar S, Nazzal A et al. Uterine sarcoma: analysis of 13,089 cases based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26 (6): 1098–1104. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000720.
22. Sehnal B, Benková K, Kmoníčková E et al. Současný staging zhoubných nádorů děložního těla a jeho význam pro klinickou praxi. Cesk Patol 2014; 50 (2): 100–105.
23. Soto-Wright V, McLellan R. Chapter 46 – Uterine Sarcomas. In: Bieber EJ, Sanfilippo JS, Horowitz IR (eds). Clinical gynecology. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone 2006: 677–685.
24. ACOG committee opinion no. 770: uterine morcellation for presumed leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (3): e238–e248. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003126.
25. Pritts EA, Vanness DJ, Berek JS et al. The prevalence of occult leiomyosarcoma at surgery for presumed uterine fibroids: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Surg 2015; 12 (3): 165–177. doi: 10.1007/s10397-015-0894-4.
26. Hartmann KE, Fonnesbeck C, Surawicz T et al. Management of uterine fibroids. 2017 [online]. Available from: https: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537742/.
27. Oliva E, Carcangiu ML, Carinelli SG, et al. Tumours of the uterine corpus: mesenchymal tumours. In: Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS (eds). World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours of the Female Reproductive Organs. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer 2014: 135–147.
28. Raspagliesi F, Bogani G, Lorusso D. The impact of morcellation on survival outcomes of undiagnosed uterine sarcoma. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2018; 23: 37–38. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2018.01.007.
29. Park JY, Park SK, Kim DY et al. The impact of tumor morcellation during surgery on the prognosis of patients with apparently early uterine leiomyosarcoma. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122 (2): 255–259. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.04.021.
30. Stentz NC, Cooney LG, Sammel M et al. Changes in myomectomy practice after the U.S. food and drug administration safety communication on power morcellation. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129 (6): 1007–1013. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002035.
31. Jorgensen EM, Modest AM, Hur HC et al. Hysterectomy practice patterns in the postmorcellation era. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (4): 643–649. doi: 10.1097/AOG.000000000000 3181.
32. Siedhoff MT, Wheeler SB, Rutstein SE et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation vs abdominal hysterectomy for presumed fibroid tumors in premenopausal women: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (5): 591.e1–591.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03. 006.
33. Rutstein SE, Siedhoff MT, Geller EJ et al. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation compared with abdominal hysterectomy for presumed myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (2): 223–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.09.025.
34. Multinu F, Casarin J, Hanson KT et al. Practice patterns and complications of benign hysterectomy following the FDA statement warning against the use of power morcellation. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (6): e180141. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0141.
35. Sandberg EM, van den Haak L, Bosse T et al. Disseminated leiomyoma cells can be identified following conventional myomectomy. BJOG 2016; 123 (13): 2183–2187. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14265.
36. Takeda A, Tsuge S, Shibata M et al. Identification of leiomyoma cell sheets in peritoneal washings retrieved by an intraoperative red blood cell salvage device during laparoscopic-assisted myomectomy with in-bag manual tissue extraction: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25 (7): 1266–1273. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.026.
37. Taylan E, Sahin C, Zeybek B et al. Contained morcellation: review of current methods and future directions. Front Surg 2017; 4: 15. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00015.
38. Frascà C, Degli Esposti E, Arena A et al. Can in-bag manual morcellation represent an alternative to uncontained power morcellation in laparoscopic myomectomy? A randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 83 (1): 52–56. doi: 10.1159/000477171.
39. Lambat Emery S, Pluchino N, Petignat P et al. Cell spillage after contained electromechanical morcellation using a specially designed in-bag system for laparoscopic myomectomy: prospective cohort pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019; 26 (7): 1351–1356. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.01.014.
40. Food and Drug Administration. UPDATE: the FDA recommends performing contained morcellation in women when laparoscopic power morcellation is appropriate. 2020 [online]. Available from: https: //www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-fda-recommends-performing-contained-morcellation-women-when-laparoscopic-power-morcellation.
41. Halaska MJ, Gracia M, Laky R et al. Morcellation of the uterus: is there any place? Curr Oncol Rep 2020; 22 (7): 68. doi: 10.1007/s11912- 020-00927-6.
42. Yu SP, Lee BB, Han MN et al. Irrigation after laparoscopic power morcellation and the dispersal of leiomyoma cells: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25 (4): 632–637. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.027.
43. Brown J. AAGL advancing minimally invasive gynecology worldwide: statement to the FDA on power morcellation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21 (6): 970–971. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.780.
44. Sizzi O, Manganaro L, Rossetti A et al. Assessing the risk of laparoscopic morcellation of occult uterine sarcomas during hysterectomy and myomectomy: literature review and the ISGE recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 220: 30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.10.030.
Štítky
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Gynaecology
2022 Číslo 4
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Uterine perforation during intrauterine procedures and its management
- Uterus sparing surgery in adenomyosis and its impact on reproductive outcomes
- Amniotic fluid embolism – review and multicentric case analysis
- Cesarean scar pregnancy – a retrospective analysis of cases in the years 2012–2021