Sara R C Driessen1, Ewout A Arkenbout2, Andreas L Thurkow3, Frank-Willem Jansen4. 1. Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 2. Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Gynecology, Sint Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: f.w.jansen@lumc.nl.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess all electromechanical morcellators used in gynecology to achieve an objective comparison between them and to make suggestions for improvements in future developments. DESIGN: Literature review. INTERVENTION: The PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and MAUDE databases were systematically searched for all available literature using the terms "morcellator," "morcellators," "morcellate," "morcellation," and "morcellated." All articles with information on morcellation time and morcellated tissue mass or the calculated morcellation rate of electromechanical morcellators used for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were included. For general data of an existing morcellator, the manufacturer was contacted and Google was searched. Data for morcellation rate, type of procedure, and general characteristics were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven articles were suitable for analysis, and 11 different morcellators were found. In the past decades the morcellation rate has increased. The described morcellation rate ranged from 6.2 to 40.4 g/min. Motor peeling is currently the fastest working principle. Comparing hysterectomy and myomectomy per device, the Morcellex and Rotocut morcellators demonstrated a higher morcellation rate for myomectomy, 25.9 vs 30 g/min and 28.4 vs 33.1 g/min, respectively, although the X-Tract morcellator showed a higher rate for hysterectomy, 14.2 vs 11.7 g/min. CONCLUSION: Over the years, the morcellator has improved with respect to the morcellation rate. However, the morcellation process still has limitations, including tissue scattering, morcellator-related injuries, and the inevitable small blade diameter, which all come at the expense of the morcellation rate and time. Therefore, development of improved morcellators is required, with consideration of the observed limitations.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess all electromechanical morcellators used in gynecology to achieve an objective comparison between them and to make suggestions for improvements in future developments. DESIGN: Literature review. INTERVENTION: The PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and MAUDE databases were systematically searched for all available literature using the terms "morcellator," "morcellators," "morcellate," "morcellation," and "morcellated." All articles with information on morcellation time and morcellated tissue mass or the calculated morcellation rate of electromechanical morcellators used for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were included. For general data of an existing morcellator, the manufacturer was contacted and Google was searched. Data for morcellation rate, type of procedure, and general characteristics were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven articles were suitable for analysis, and 11 different morcellators were found. In the past decades the morcellation rate has increased. The described morcellation rate ranged from 6.2 to 40.4 g/min. Motor peeling is currently the fastest working principle. Comparing hysterectomy and myomectomy per device, the Morcellex and Rotocut morcellators demonstrated a higher morcellation rate for myomectomy, 25.9 vs 30 g/min and 28.4 vs 33.1 g/min, respectively, although the X-Tract morcellator showed a higher rate for hysterectomy, 14.2 vs 11.7 g/min. CONCLUSION: Over the years, the morcellator has improved with respect to the morcellation rate. However, the morcellation process still has limitations, including tissue scattering, morcellator-related injuries, and the inevitable small blade diameter, which all come at the expense of the morcellation rate and time. Therefore, development of improved morcellators is required, with consideration of the observed limitations.