4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Non-malignant Sequelae after Unconfined Power Morcellation

期刊

JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 434-440

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.05.010

关键词

Abnormal uterine bleeding; Endometriosis; Laparoscopy; Parasitic leiomyoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objective: To identify the incidence of repeat surgery and subsequent findings after the performance of unconfined uterine power morcellation. Design: A retrospective descriptive study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Centers. Patients: Women (N = 5154) who underwent laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with unconfined power morcellation. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 5154 cases, 279 (5.41%) underwent subsequent reoperation with a median of 24 months after index surgery. The most common clinical complaint leading to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy was symptomatic leiomyoma (n = 135, 48.4%) and abnormal uterine bleeding (n = 94, 33.7%). The most common indication for reoperation was a symptomatic adnexal mass (n = 87, 31.2%) followed by pelvic pain (n = 83, 29.7%). The majority (n = 128, 60.4%) of subsequent non-urogynecologic-related reoperations resulted in benign pathology. Endometriosis was the primary pathologic diagnosis in 65 of 279 (23.3%) of the reoperative cases; this was not previously documented in 86% (n = 57/65) of these cases. The overall frequency of subsequent pathology was endometriosis (65/5154, 1.26%), disseminated leiomyomatosis (18/5154, 0.35%), and new malignancy (11/5154, 0.21%). Conclusion: Morcellation of nonmalignant tissue is not without consequence. Pathology confirmed endometriosis was documented for the first time in 20.4% of patients who underwent a second surgery. This finding raises the suspicion that morcellation and dispersion of the uterine specimen may be associated in the development of endometriosis. (C) 2018 AAGL. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据