4.5 Article

The menstrual cycle and blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy

Journal

ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 96, Issue 12, Pages 1446-1452

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13240

Keywords

Endoscopic surgery; menstrual cycle; myomectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionOperative morbidity of laparoscopic myomectomy largely relates to the potential for intraoperative blood loss. We sought to determine whether blood loss varies according to the menstrual cycle. Material and methodsA retrospective study of 268 women who underwent a laparoscopic myomectomy from 2007 to 2012. Patients were categorized into five menstrual groups: follicular phase, luteal phase, oligomenorrheic or amenorrheic on hormonal therapy, postmenopausal or other. Patient and procedure characteristics were compared for the follicular phase group, luteal phase group, and hormonal therapy group. The estimated blood loss was compared across the five groups using a regression model. ResultsA total of 268 women underwent a laparoscopic myomectomy: 108 (40.3%) were in the follicular phase, 92 (34.3%) were in the luteal phase, 44 (16.4%) were on hormonal therapy, nine (3.4%) were postmenopausal, and 15 (5.6%) could not be classified. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups with the exception of endometriosis. Geometric mean estimated blood loss was 91.9mL in the follicular phase group, 108.7mL in the luteal phase group, 114.1mL in the hormonal therapy group, and 39.8mL in the postmenopausal group. There was no significant difference in the geometric mean estimated blood loss when comparing the follilcuar phase, luteal phase, and hormonal phase groups (p=0.41). Upon adjusted multivariable analysis of all five menstrual groups, there was also no difference in estimated blood loss. ConclusionsIntraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy does not vary significantly with the phase of the menstrual cycle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available