Purpose. To assess the feasibility rate of one-step hysteroscopic myomectomy according to the technique adopted. Methods. In July 2016, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, SCOPUS, Scielo, and AJOL databases were used for searching references. Series of in-patient hysteroscopic myomectomies reporting success rate in only one-step procedure, categorization of submucous fibroids, expla- nation of the surgical technique, and description of patients were considered eligible for meta-analysis (retrospective, prospective randomized studies). Two authors extracted the data. Rate of myomectomies accomplished in only a surgical step and rate of intraoperative complications were extracted per protocol. A modified GRADE score was used for quality assessment. Random- effect models were already assumed. Mean rates were compared among subgroups. Results. One thousand two hundred and fifty- seven studies were screened and 241 of these were read for eligibility. Seventy-eight series were included in qualitative synthesis and 24 series were included in quantitative synthesis. Wide heterogeneity was found. In series with <50% of G2 myomas treated, the slicing technique feasibility rate was 86.5% while techniques for enucleating the deep portion of the myomas showed a feasibility rate of 92.3% (p < 0.001). In series with ≥50% of G2 myomas treated, the slicing technique feasibility rate was 70.6% while techniques for enucleating the deep portion of myomas showed a feasibility rate of 88.4% (p < 0.001). Complications were significantly lower for alternative techniques to the classical slicing. Conclusion. In case of submucous myomas with intramural development, the slicing technique was correlated with a lower rate of in-patient hysteroscopic myomectomies accomplished in a one-step procedure and a higher complications rate.

Likelihood of Accomplishing an In-Patient Hysteroscopic Myomectomy in a One-Step Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Favilli A
2020-01-01

Abstract

Purpose. To assess the feasibility rate of one-step hysteroscopic myomectomy according to the technique adopted. Methods. In July 2016, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, SCOPUS, Scielo, and AJOL databases were used for searching references. Series of in-patient hysteroscopic myomectomies reporting success rate in only one-step procedure, categorization of submucous fibroids, expla- nation of the surgical technique, and description of patients were considered eligible for meta-analysis (retrospective, prospective randomized studies). Two authors extracted the data. Rate of myomectomies accomplished in only a surgical step and rate of intraoperative complications were extracted per protocol. A modified GRADE score was used for quality assessment. Random- effect models were already assumed. Mean rates were compared among subgroups. Results. One thousand two hundred and fifty- seven studies were screened and 241 of these were read for eligibility. Seventy-eight series were included in qualitative synthesis and 24 series were included in quantitative synthesis. Wide heterogeneity was found. In series with <50% of G2 myomas treated, the slicing technique feasibility rate was 86.5% while techniques for enucleating the deep portion of the myomas showed a feasibility rate of 92.3% (p < 0.001). In series with ≥50% of G2 myomas treated, the slicing technique feasibility rate was 70.6% while techniques for enucleating the deep portion of myomas showed a feasibility rate of 88.4% (p < 0.001). Complications were significantly lower for alternative techniques to the classical slicing. Conclusion. In case of submucous myomas with intramural development, the slicing technique was correlated with a lower rate of in-patient hysteroscopic myomectomies accomplished in a one-step procedure and a higher complications rate.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11391/1536275
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact