4.1 Review

Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comparison of techniques and review of current evidence in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 243-251

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000475

Keywords

abnormal uterine bleeding; hysteroscopic myomectomy; submucosal leiomyoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of reviewSubmucosal uterine leiomyomas are a common benign pelvic tumor that can cause abnormal uterine bleeding and may contribute to infertility and miscarriage. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is the treatment of choice to alleviate bleeding from these myomas and to normalize the uterine cavity. This review discusses the techniques and recent evidence for hysteroscopic myomectomy and examines the two primary surgical tools employed today: the bipolar resectoscope and hysteroscopic mechanical morcellator.Recent findingsHysteroscopic myomectomy has been a popular treatment for symptomatic submucosal fibroids for decades; it is a minimally invasive, low-cost, low-risk procedure, and is associated with high patient satisfaction. There have been rapid advances in the surgical technology available for this procedure. Both the bipolar resectoscope and the hysteroscopic mechanical morcellator are appropriate tools to remove submucosal myomas. Although the hysteroscopic morcellators have been associated with shortened operative time and a decreased learning curve, the data are limited for their use on type 2 fibroids. The strength of the bipolar resectoscope lies in its ability to resect deeper type 2 fibroids.SummaryThe evidence suggests that no one technique should be used for all patients, but rather a choice of technique should be taken on a case-by-case basis, depending on the myoma number, size, type, and location. Gynecologists must become knowledgeable about each of these techniques and their associated risks to safely offer these surgeries to their patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available