Michael Anapolski1, Dimitrios Panayotopoulos2, Ibrahim Alkatout3, Stefan Soltesz4, Sven Schiermeier5, Günter Noé6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Community Hospital Dormagen, Dr.-Geldmacher-St. 20, 41540, Dormagen, Germany. michael.anapolski@kkh-ne.de. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Community Hospital Dormagen, Dr.-Geldmacher-St. 20, 41540, Dormagen, Germany. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Community Hospital Dormagen, Dormagen, Germany. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Community Hospital Dormagen, University of Witten-Herdecke, Dormagen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electromechanical power morcellation is an important tool of modern laparoscopy. Recent reports on the spread of previously undetected malignancy by power morcellation indicate the need for additional protective devices to reduce this risk. We conducted a study to obtain the first data concerning the safety of an endobag with three closable ports during morcellation and subsequent bag extraction under in vitro conditions, mimicking the settings in our operating theater. The second purpose of the study was to establish a minimal width of the skin incision necessary to safely extract the sealed bag after morcellation. METHODS: The morcellation test was carried out on 11 stained porcine muscle tissue samples with one additional sample as a control. The insufflation pressure was set at 12 mmHg. After filling the endobag with blue dye solution, an additional extraction test was conducted by pulling the closed bag through a template with apertures of various diameters. For each opening, a series of ten bag extractions was carried out. RESULTS: No loss of solid material or fluid was recorded during the morcellation test. The extraction test showed a loss of fluid for template openings smaller than 18 mm. The force necessary to extract the bag was inversely related to the width of the aperture. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that under the evaluated conditions, the use of a closable morcellation bag can considerably improve the patient's safety during morcellation. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the influence of the bag on operating time, intervention costs and complications.
BACKGROUND: Electromechanical power morcellation is an important tool of modern laparoscopy. Recent reports on the spread of previously undetected malignancy by power morcellation indicate the need for additional protective devices to reduce this risk. We conducted a study to obtain the first data concerning the safety of an endobag with three closable ports during morcellation and subsequent bag extraction under in vitro conditions, mimicking the settings in our operating theater. The second purpose of the study was to establish a minimal width of the skin incision necessary to safely extract the sealed bag after morcellation. METHODS: The morcellation test was carried out on 11 stained porcine muscle tissue samples with one additional sample as a control. The insufflation pressure was set at 12 mmHg. After filling the endobag with blue dye solution, an additional extraction test was conducted by pulling the closed bag through a template with apertures of various diameters. For each opening, a series of ten bag extractions was carried out. RESULTS: No loss of solid material or fluid was recorded during the morcellation test. The extraction test showed a loss of fluid for template openings smaller than 18 mm. The force necessary to extract the bag was inversely related to the width of the aperture. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that under the evaluated conditions, the use of a closable morcellation bag can considerably improve the patient's safety during morcellation. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the influence of the bag on operating time, intervention costs and complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
In-bag morcellation; Intracorporeal morcellation; Myoma; Power morcellation; Sarcoma
Authors: Yi Cai; Avrum Jacobson; Robert Marcovich; Daniel Lowe; Assaad El-Hakim; Darshan K Shah; Arthur D Smith; Benjamin R Lee Journal: Urology Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Titilope Oduyebo; Alejandro J Rauh-Hain; Emily E Meserve; Michael A Seidman; Emily Hinchcliff; Suzanne George; Bradley Quade; Marisa R Nucci; Marcela G Del Carmen; Michael G Muto Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sarah L Cohen; Jon I Einarsson; Karen C Wang; Douglas Brown; David Boruta; Stacey A Scheib; Amanda N Fader; Tony Shibley Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Simon D Wu; O Alex Lesani; Lee C Zhao; William K Johnston; J Stuart Wolf; Ralph V Clayman; Robert B Nadler Journal: J Endourol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Anne Lethaby; Emma Tavender; Elizabeth Curr; Ray Garry; Sabine van Voorst; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Sarah L Cohen; Stephanie N Morris; Doug N Brown; James A Greenberg; Brian W Walsh; Antonio R Gargiulo; Keith B Isaacson; Kelly N Wright; Serene S Srouji; Raymond M Anchan; Alison B Vogell; Jon I Einarsson Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-09-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michael Anapolski; Anja Schellenberger; Ibrahim Alkatout; Dimitrios Panayotopoulos; Alexander Gut; Stefan Soltesz; Sven Schiermeier; Thomas Papathemelis; Günter K Noé Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 4.379