OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the 2014 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication on power morcellation and surgical approach and morbidity after myomectomy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were abstracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database on 3,160 myomectomies between April 2012 and December 2013 (pre-FDA) and 4,378 between April 2014 and December 2015 (post-FDA). Aims were to 1) compare rates of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy pre-FDA and post-FDA (primary outcome), 2) directly compare the morbidity of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy during each time period (secondary outcome 1), and 3) compare the morbidity after all myomectomies performed pre-FDA and post-FDA (secondary outcome 2). Adjusted means, odds ratios, and rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using linear, logistic, and Poisson regression, respectively, adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and myoma burden. RESULTS: Myomectomies performed post-FDA were more likely to be abdominal (60.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.6-61.5%) than laparoscopic (40.0%, 95% CI 38.5-41.4%) as compared with myomectomies pre-FDA, which were equally divided between surgical approaches (49.1% abdominal, 95% CI 47.4-50.9% compared with 50.9% laparoscopic, 95% CI 49.1-52.6%; P<.001). When directly compared with laparoscopic myomectomy, abdominal myomectomy was associated with longer hospitalizations, higher readmission rates, and greater morbidity both pre-FDA and post-FDA (P<.05, all comparisons). Adjusted models demonstrated shorter operative times post-FDA for all myomectomies (P<.001), although composite morbidity was similar between myomectomies performed pre-FDA and post-FDA (P=.809). CONCLUSIONS: The FDA safety communication on power morcellation was associated with an 11% absolute increase in the use of abdominal myomectomy. Although morbidity is consistently higher after abdominal as compared with laparoscopic myomectomy, the increased reliance on abdominal myomectomy post-FDA did not result in clinically significant changes in morbidity in this cohort.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the 2014 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication on power morcellation and surgical approach and morbidity after myomectomy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were abstracted from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database on 3,160 myomectomies between April 2012 and December 2013 (pre-FDA) and 4,378 between April 2014 and December 2015 (post-FDA). Aims were to 1) compare rates of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy pre-FDA and post-FDA (primary outcome), 2) directly compare the morbidity of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy during each time period (secondary outcome 1), and 3) compare the morbidity after all myomectomies performed pre-FDA and post-FDA (secondary outcome 2). Adjusted means, odds ratios, and rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using linear, logistic, and Poisson regression, respectively, adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and myoma burden. RESULTS: Myomectomies performed post-FDA were more likely to be abdominal (60.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.6-61.5%) than laparoscopic (40.0%, 95% CI 38.5-41.4%) as compared with myomectomies pre-FDA, which were equally divided between surgical approaches (49.1% abdominal, 95% CI 47.4-50.9% compared with 50.9% laparoscopic, 95% CI 49.1-52.6%; P<.001). When directly compared with laparoscopic myomectomy, abdominal myomectomy was associated with longer hospitalizations, higher readmission rates, and greater morbidity both pre-FDA and post-FDA (P<.05, all comparisons). Adjusted models demonstrated shorter operative times post-FDA for all myomectomies (P<.001), although composite morbidity was similar between myomectomies performed pre-FDA and post-FDA (P=.809). CONCLUSIONS: The FDA safety communication on power morcellation was associated with an 11% absolute increase in the use of abdominal myomectomy. Although morbidity is consistently higher after abdominal as compared with laparoscopic myomectomy, the increased reliance on abdominal myomectomy post-FDA did not result in clinically significant changes in morbidity in this cohort.
Authors: John A Harris; Carolyn W Swenson; Shitanshu Uppal; Neil Kamdar; Nichole Mahnert; Sawsan As-Sanie; Daniel M Morgan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; David M Shahian; Justin B Dimick; Samuel R G Finlayson; David R Flum; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce Lee Hall Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Mira Shiloach; Stanley K Frencher; Janet E Steeger; Katherine S Rowell; Kristine Bartzokis; Majed G Tomeh; Karen E Richards; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce L Hall Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-11-22 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jason D Wright; Ana I Tergas; Rosa Cui; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Cande V Ananth; Ling Chen; Catherine Richards; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; Jennifer Daley; Olga Jonasson; R Scott Jones; Darrell A Campbell; Aaron S Fink; Robert M Mentzer; Leigh Neumayer; Karl Hammermeister; Cecilia Mosca; Nancy Healey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Elizabeth A Pritts; David J Vanness; Jonathan S Berek; William Parker; Ronald Feinberg; Jacqueline Feinberg; David L Olive Journal: Gynecol Surg Date: 2015-05-19
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Laine Thomas; Sophia Anderson; Donna D Baird; Raymond M Anchan; Kathryn L Terry; Erica E Marsh; Ganesa Wegienka; Wanda Kay Nicholson; Kedra Wallace; Robert Bigelow; James Spies; George L Maxwell; Vanessa Jacoby; Evan R Myers; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 7.490
Authors: Lukas van den Haak; Cor D de Kroon; Milo I Warmerdam; Albert G Siebers; Johann P Rhemrev; Theodoor E Nieboer; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Sa Ra Lee; Eun Sil Lee; Young Jae Lee; Shin Wha Lee; Jeong Yeol Park; Dae Yeon Kim; Sung Hoon Kim; Yong Man Kim; Dae Shik Suh; Young Tak Kim Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Michael G Tal; Ran Keidar; Gilad Magnazi; Ohad Henn; Jin Hee Kim; Scott G Chudnoff; Kevin J Stepp Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 2.924