Literature DB >> 24992788

Monopolar versus bipolar device: safety, feasibility, limits and perioperative complications in performing hysteroscopic myomectomy.

P Litta, C Leggieri, L Conte, A Dalla Toffola, F Multinu, S Angioni.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: The authors' aim is to compare surgical outcome of hysteroscopic G1 and G2 submucous myomectomy using bipolar resectoscope to those performed by monopolar device.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: a multicenter-observational-case-control study was conducted on premenopausal women affected by menorrhagia, pelvic pain or infertility because of submucous uterine myoma. The authors considered eligible: single G1 or G2 submucous uterine myoma, at least 0.5 cm ultrasound 'myometrial-free-margin' and two months GnRH pre-surgical treatment (myoma > three cm). Goup A patients were treated b y bipolar resectoscope and Group B by monopolar resectoscope. Primary endpoint was to compare the groups in term of complete or incomplete myomas resection ("second-step-procedure" rate). Secondary endpoint was to compare two treatments in term of surgical time and intraoperative complications rate.
RESULTS: Group A (60 patients) and Group B (216 patients) were homogeneous for general features and myomas location but they differed for G2 type prevalence (73.3% vs 50.5%), mean myomas diameter (33.17 +/- 11.93 vs 29.45 +/- 9.63), and surgical time (29.43 +/- 12.6 vs 23.2 +/- 8.2 minutes). In Group A patients both G1 and G2 myomas were completely removed in single step without intraoperative/postoperative complications; in Group B surgical outcomes of G1 myomas were similar to those of Group A, while G2 myomas required procedure termination in 12% of cases because of light electrolyte disturbance (22 cases) and severe iponatremia in four cases. All intraoperative complications occurred when procedure time exceeded 30 minutes and when myomas diameter was greater than 37.5 millimeters.
CONCLUSION: in the era ofmini-invasive surgery, hysteroscopic approach by bipolar device should be considered as a useful, safe, and large scale feasible procedure for submucosal myoma treatment, particularly when G2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24992788

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0390-6663            Impact factor:   0.146


  7 in total

1.  Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility.

Authors:  Mostafa Metwally; Grace Raybould; Ying C Cheong; Andrew W Horne
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-29

2.  Comparative Study between Monopolar Electrodes and Bipolar Electrodes in Hysteroscopic Surgery.

Authors:  Abdelaziz Ezzeldin Tammam; Hazem Hashim Ahmed; Ahmed Hshim Abdella; Sayed Ahmed Mohmed Taha
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-11-01

3.  A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Unipolar Versus Bipolar Hysteroscopic Myomectomy in Infertile Women.

Authors:  Kallol K Roy; Sandeep Metta; Yamini Kansal; Sunesh Kumar; Seema Singhal; Perumal Vanamail
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

4.  Two-Step Office-Based Hysteroscopic Operation for Submucosal Myoma.

Authors:  Sung-Tack Oh; Hyun Kyung Ryu
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

5.  Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Gels for the Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after a Hysteroscopic Myomectomy in Women with Submucosal Myomas: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Chen-Yu Huang; Wen-Hsun Chang; Min Cheng; Hsin-Yi Huang; Huann-Cheng Horng; Yi-Jen Chen; Wen-Ling Lee; Peng-Hui Wang
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-15

Review 6.  Focus on the Primary Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions: Current Concept and Vision.

Authors:  Wen-Ling Lee; Chia-Hao Liu; Min Cheng; Wen-Hsun Chang; Wei-Min Liu; Peng-Hui Wang
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 7.  Hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Authors:  Karolina Piecak; Paweł Milart
Journal:  Prz Menopauzalny       Date:  2017-12-30
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.