Arnold P. Advincula, MD

It has been an incredible year for complex gynecology and minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), with several outstanding new findings and reviews in 2023. The surgical community continues to push the envelope and emphasize the value of this specialty for women’s health.

Endometriosis and adenomyosis were at the center of several large cohort studies and systematic reviews that reassessed what we know about how to evaluate and treat these challenging diseases, including both surgical and nonsurgical approaches, with an emphasis on fertility-sparing modalities.^1-8 In addition, a focus on quality of life, patient-centered care, and racial biases allowed us to reflect on our own practice patterns and keep the patient at the center of care models.^9-13 Finally, there was a clear expansion in the use of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for care and novel minimally invasive tools.¹⁴

In this Update, we highlight and expand on how several particularly important developments are likely to make a difference in our clinical management.

New classification system for cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy with defined surgical guidance has 97% treatment success rate

Ban Y, Shen J, Wang X, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system with recommended surgical strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:927-936. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005113

A large multiarmed study by Ban and colleagues used multivariable modeling to formulate and test a classification system and recommended surgical treatment strategies for patients with a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP).¹⁵ In the study, 273 patients were included in the predictive modeling group, 118 in the internal validation group, and 564 within the model testing cohort. Classifications were based on 2 independent risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage: anterior myometrial thickness and mean diameter of gestational sac (MSD).

Classification types

The 3 main CSP types were defined based on the anterior myometrial thickness at the cesarean section scar (type I, > 3 mm; type II, 1–3 mm; type III, ≤ 1 mm) and subtyped based on the MSD (type IIa, MSD ≤ 30 mm; type IIb, MSD > 30 mm; type IIIa, MSD ≤ 50 mm; type IIIb, MSD > 50 mm).

The subgroups were matched with recommended surgical strategy using expert opinion: Type I CSP was treated with suction dilation and aspiration (D&A) under ultrasound guidance, with or without hysteroscopy. Type IIa CSP was treated with suction D&A with hysteroscopy under ultrasound guidance. Type IIb CSP was treated with hysteroscopy with laparoscopic monitoring or excision, or transvaginal excision. Type IIIa CSP was treated with laparoscopic excision or transvaginal excision. Type IIIb CSP was treated with laparoscopic excision after uterine artery embolization or laparotomy (TABLE).¹⁵

Treatment outcomes

These guidelines were tested on a cohort of 564 patients between 2014 and 2022. Using these treatment guidelines, the overall treatment success rate was 97.5%; 85% of patients had a negative serum ß-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) level within 3 weeks, and 95.2% of patients resumed menstrual cycles within 8 weeks. Successful treatment was defined as:

• complete resection of the products of conception
• no need to shift to a second-line surgical strategy
• no major complications
• no readmission for additional treatment
• serum ß-hCG levels that returned to normal within 4 weeks.

Continue to: Pre-op hormonal treatment of endometriosis found to be protective against post-op complications...

Pre-op hormonal treatment of endometriosis found to be protective against post-op complications

Casarin J, Ghezzi F, Mueller M, et al. Surgical outcomes and complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometriosis: a multicentric cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30:587-592. doi:1016/j.jmig.2023.03.018

In a large European multicenter retrospective cohort study, Casarin and colleagues evaluated perioperative complications during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometriosis or adenomyosis in 995 patients treated from 2010 to 2020.²

Reported intraoperative data included the frequency of ureterolysis (26.8%), deep nodule resection (30%) and posterior adhesiolysis (38.9%), unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (15.1%), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (26.8%), estimated blood loss (mean, 100 mL), and adverse events. Intraoperative complications occurred in 3% of cases (including bladder/bowel injury or need for transfusion).

Postoperative complications occurred in 13.8% of cases, and 9.3% had a major event, including vaginal cuff dehiscence, fever, abscess, and fistula.

Factors associated with postoperative complications

In a multivariate analysis, the authors found that increased operative time, younger age at surgery, previous surgery for endometriosis, and occurrence of intraoperative complications were associated with Clavien-Dindo score grade 2 or greater postoperative complications.

Medical treatment for endometriosis with estro-progestin or progestin medications, however, was found to be protective, with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.81).

Diaphragmatic endometriosis prevalence higher than previously reported

Pagano F, Schwander A, Vaineau C, et al. True prevalence of diaphragmatic endometriosis and its association with severe endometriosis: a call for awareness and investigation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30:329-334. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2023.01.006

Pagano and colleagues conducted an impressive large prospective cohort study that included more than 1,300 patients with histologically proven endometriosis.¹ Each patient underwent a systematic evaluation and reporting of intraoperative findings, including bilateral evaluation for diaphragmatic endometriosis (DE).

Patients with DE had high rates of infertility and high-stage disease

In this cohort, 4.7% of patients were found to have diaphragmatic disease; 92.3% of these cases had DE involving the right diaphragm. Patients with DE had a higher rate of infertility than those without DE (nearly 50%), but otherwise they had no difference in typical endometriosis symptoms (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, dysuria). In this cohort, 27.4% had diaphragmatic symptoms (right shoulder pain, cough, cyclic dyspnea).

Patients found to have DE had higher rates of stage III/IV disease (78.4%), and the left pelvis was affected in more patients (73.8%).

A word on fertility-sparing treatments for adenomyosis

Several interesting and thoughtful studies were published on the fertility-sparing management of adenomyosis.^6-8 These included a comparison of fertility outcomes following excisional and nonexcisional therapies,⁶ a systematic review of the literature that compared recurrence rates following procedural and surgical treatments,⁸ and outcomes after use of a novel therapy (percutaneous microwave ablation) for the treatment of adenomyosis.⁷

Although our critical evaluation of these studies found that they are not robust enough to yet change our practice, we want to applaud the authors on their discerning questions and on taking the initial steps to answer critical questions, including:

• What is the best uterine-sparing method for treatment of diffuse adenomyosis?
• Are radiofrequency or microwave ablation procedures the future of adenomyosis care?
• How do we counsel patients about fertility potential following procedural treatments?

It has been an incredible year for complex gynecology and minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), with several outstanding new findings and reviews in 2023. The surgical community continues to push the envelope and emphasize the value of this specialty for women’s health.

Endometriosis and adenomyosis were at the center of several large cohort studies and systematic reviews that reassessed what we know about how to evaluate and treat these challenging diseases, including both surgical and nonsurgical approaches, with an emphasis on fertility-sparing modalities.^1-8 In addition, a focus on quality of life, patient-centered care, and racial biases allowed us to reflect on our own practice patterns and keep the patient at the center of care models.^9-13 Finally, there was a clear expansion in the use of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for care and novel minimally invasive tools.¹⁴

In this Update, we highlight and expand on how several particularly important developments are likely to make a difference in our clinical management.

New classification system for cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy with defined surgical guidance has 97% treatment success rate

Ban Y, Shen J, Wang X, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system with recommended surgical strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:927-936. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005113

A large multiarmed study by Ban and colleagues used multivariable modeling to formulate and test a classification system and recommended surgical treatment strategies for patients with a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP).¹⁵ In the study, 273 patients were included in the predictive modeling group, 118 in the internal validation group, and 564 within the model testing cohort. Classifications were based on 2 independent risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage: anterior myometrial thickness and mean diameter of gestational sac (MSD).

Classification types

The 3 main CSP types were defined based on the anterior myometrial thickness at the cesarean section scar (type I, > 3 mm; type II, 1–3 mm; type III, ≤ 1 mm) and subtyped based on the MSD (type IIa, MSD ≤ 30 mm; type IIb, MSD > 30 mm; type IIIa, MSD ≤ 50 mm; type IIIb, MSD > 50 mm).

The subgroups were matched with recommended surgical strategy using expert opinion: Type I CSP was treated with suction dilation and aspiration (D&A) under ultrasound guidance, with or without hysteroscopy. Type IIa CSP was treated with suction D&A with hysteroscopy under ultrasound guidance. Type IIb CSP was treated with hysteroscopy with laparoscopic monitoring or excision, or transvaginal excision. Type IIIa CSP was treated with laparoscopic excision or transvaginal excision. Type IIIb CSP was treated with laparoscopic excision after uterine artery embolization or laparotomy (TABLE).¹⁵

Treatment outcomes

These guidelines were tested on a cohort of 564 patients between 2014 and 2022. Using these treatment guidelines, the overall treatment success rate was 97.5%; 85% of patients had a negative serum ß-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) level within 3 weeks, and 95.2% of patients resumed menstrual cycles within 8 weeks. Successful treatment was defined as:

• complete resection of the products of conception
• no need to shift to a second-line surgical strategy
• no major complications
• no readmission for additional treatment
• serum ß-hCG levels that returned to normal within 4 weeks.

Continue to: Pre-op hormonal treatment of endometriosis found to be protective against post-op complications...

Pre-op hormonal treatment of endometriosis found to be protective against post-op complications

Casarin J, Ghezzi F, Mueller M, et al. Surgical outcomes and complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometriosis: a multicentric cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30:587-592. doi:1016/j.jmig.2023.03.018

In a large European multicenter retrospective cohort study, Casarin and colleagues evaluated perioperative complications during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometriosis or adenomyosis in 995 patients treated from 2010 to 2020.²

Reported intraoperative data included the frequency of ureterolysis (26.8%), deep nodule resection (30%) and posterior adhesiolysis (38.9%), unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (15.1%), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (26.8%), estimated blood loss (mean, 100 mL), and adverse events. Intraoperative complications occurred in 3% of cases (including bladder/bowel injury or need for transfusion).

Postoperative complications occurred in 13.8% of cases, and 9.3% had a major event, including vaginal cuff dehiscence, fever, abscess, and fistula.

Factors associated with postoperative complications

In a multivariate analysis, the authors found that increased operative time, younger age at surgery, previous surgery for endometriosis, and occurrence of intraoperative complications were associated with Clavien-Dindo score grade 2 or greater postoperative complications.

Medical treatment for endometriosis with estro-progestin or progestin medications, however, was found to be protective, with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.81).

Diaphragmatic endometriosis prevalence higher than previously reported

Pagano F, Schwander A, Vaineau C, et al. True prevalence of diaphragmatic endometriosis and its association with severe endometriosis: a call for awareness and investigation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30:329-334. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2023.01.006

Pagano and colleagues conducted an impressive large prospective cohort study that included more than 1,300 patients with histologically proven endometriosis.¹ Each patient underwent a systematic evaluation and reporting of intraoperative findings, including bilateral evaluation for diaphragmatic endometriosis (DE).

Patients with DE had high rates of infertility and high-stage disease

In this cohort, 4.7% of patients were found to have diaphragmatic disease; 92.3% of these cases had DE involving the right diaphragm. Patients with DE had a higher rate of infertility than those without DE (nearly 50%), but otherwise they had no difference in typical endometriosis symptoms (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, dysuria). In this cohort, 27.4% had diaphragmatic symptoms (right shoulder pain, cough, cyclic dyspnea).

Patients found to have DE had higher rates of stage III/IV disease (78.4%), and the left pelvis was affected in more patients (73.8%).

A word on fertility-sparing treatments for adenomyosis

Several interesting and thoughtful studies were published on the fertility-sparing management of adenomyosis.^6-8 These included a comparison of fertility outcomes following excisional and nonexcisional therapies,⁶ a systematic review of the literature that compared recurrence rates following procedural and surgical treatments,⁸ and outcomes after use of a novel therapy (percutaneous microwave ablation) for the treatment of adenomyosis.⁷

Although our critical evaluation of these studies found that they are not robust enough to yet change our practice, we want to applaud the authors on their discerning questions and on taking the initial steps to answer critical questions, including:

• What is the best uterine-sparing method for treatment of diffuse adenomyosis?
• Are radiofrequency or microwave ablation procedures the future of adenomyosis care?
• How do we counsel patients about fertility potential following procedural treatments?

It has been an incredible year for complex gynecology and minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), with several outstanding new findings and reviews in 2023. The surgical community continues to push the envelope and emphasize the value of this specialty for women’s health.

Endometriosis and adenomyosis were at the center of several large cohort studies and systematic reviews that reassessed what we know about how to evaluate and treat these challenging diseases, including both surgical and nonsurgical approaches, with an emphasis on fertility-sparing modalities.^1-8 In addition, a focus on quality of life, patient-centered care, and racial biases allowed us to reflect on our own practice patterns and keep the patient at the center of care models.^9-13 Finally, there was a clear expansion in the use of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for care and novel minimally invasive tools.¹⁴

In this Update, we highlight and expand on how several particularly important developments are likely to make a difference in our clinical management.

New classification system for cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy with defined surgical guidance has 97% treatment success rate

Ban Y, Shen J, Wang X, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system with recommended surgical strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141:927-936. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005113

A large multiarmed study by Ban and colleagues used multivariable modeling to formulate and test a classification system and recommended surgical treatment strategies for patients with a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSP).¹⁵ In the study, 273 patients were included in the predictive modeling group, 118 in the internal validation group, and 564 within the model testing cohort. Classifications were based on 2 independent risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage: anterior myometrial thickness and mean diameter of gestational sac (MSD).

Classification types

The 3 main CSP types were defined based on the anterior myometrial thickness at the cesarean section scar (type I, > 3 mm; type II, 1–3 mm; type III, ≤ 1 mm) and subtyped based on the MSD (type IIa, MSD ≤ 30 mm; type IIb, MSD > 30 mm; type IIIa, MSD ≤ 50 mm; type IIIb, MSD > 50 mm).

The subgroups were matched with recommended surgical strategy using expert opinion: Type I CSP was treated with suction dilation and aspiration (D&A) under ultrasound guidance, with or without hysteroscopy. Type IIa CSP was treated with suction D&A with hysteroscopy under ultrasound guidance. Type IIb CSP was treated with hysteroscopy with laparoscopic monitoring or excision, or transvaginal excision. Type IIIa CSP was treated with laparoscopic excision or transvaginal excision. Type IIIb CSP was treated with laparoscopic excision after uterine artery embolization or laparotomy (TABLE).¹⁵

Treatment outcomes

These guidelines were tested on a cohort of 564 patients between 2014 and 2022. Using these treatment guidelines, the overall treatment success rate was 97.5%; 85% of patients had a negative serum ß-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) level within 3 weeks, and 95.2% of patients resumed menstrual cycles within 8 weeks. Successful treatment was defined as:

• complete resection of the products of conception
• no need to shift to a second-line surgical strategy
• no major complications
• no readmission for additional treatment
• serum ß-hCG levels that returned to normal within 4 weeks.

Continue to: Pre-op hormonal treatment of endometriosis found to be protective against post-op complications...

Pre-op hormonal treatment of endometriosis found to be protective against post-op complications

Casarin J, Ghezzi F, Mueller M, et al. Surgical outcomes and complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometriosis: a multicentric cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30:587-592. doi:1016/j.jmig.2023.03.018

In a large European multicenter retrospective cohort study, Casarin and colleagues evaluated perioperative complications during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometriosis or adenomyosis in 995 patients treated from 2010 to 2020.²

Reported intraoperative data included the frequency of ureterolysis (26.8%), deep nodule resection (30%) and posterior adhesiolysis (38.9%), unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (15.1%), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (26.8%), estimated blood loss (mean, 100 mL), and adverse events. Intraoperative complications occurred in 3% of cases (including bladder/bowel injury or need for transfusion).

Postoperative complications occurred in 13.8% of cases, and 9.3% had a major event, including vaginal cuff dehiscence, fever, abscess, and fistula.

Factors associated with postoperative complications

In a multivariate analysis, the authors found that increased operative time, younger age at surgery, previous surgery for endometriosis, and occurrence of intraoperative complications were associated with Clavien-Dindo score grade 2 or greater postoperative complications.

Medical treatment for endometriosis with estro-progestin or progestin medications, however, was found to be protective, with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.81).

Diaphragmatic endometriosis prevalence higher than previously reported

Pagano F, Schwander A, Vaineau C, et al. True prevalence of diaphragmatic endometriosis and its association with severe endometriosis: a call for awareness and investigation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30:329-334. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2023.01.006

Pagano and colleagues conducted an impressive large prospective cohort study that included more than 1,300 patients with histologically proven endometriosis.¹ Each patient underwent a systematic evaluation and reporting of intraoperative findings, including bilateral evaluation for diaphragmatic endometriosis (DE).

Patients with DE had high rates of infertility and high-stage disease

In this cohort, 4.7% of patients were found to have diaphragmatic disease; 92.3% of these cases had DE involving the right diaphragm. Patients with DE had a higher rate of infertility than those without DE (nearly 50%), but otherwise they had no difference in typical endometriosis symptoms (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, dysuria). In this cohort, 27.4% had diaphragmatic symptoms (right shoulder pain, cough, cyclic dyspnea).

Patients found to have DE had higher rates of stage III/IV disease (78.4%), and the left pelvis was affected in more patients (73.8%).

A word on fertility-sparing treatments for adenomyosis

Several interesting and thoughtful studies were published on the fertility-sparing management of adenomyosis.^6-8 These included a comparison of fertility outcomes following excisional and nonexcisional therapies,⁶ a systematic review of the literature that compared recurrence rates following procedural and surgical treatments,⁸ and outcomes after use of a novel therapy (percutaneous microwave ablation) for the treatment of adenomyosis.⁷

Although our critical evaluation of these studies found that they are not robust enough to yet change our practice, we want to applaud the authors on their discerning questions and on taking the initial steps to answer critical questions, including:

• What is the best uterine-sparing method for treatment of diffuse adenomyosis?
• Are radiofrequency or microwave ablation procedures the future of adenomyosis care?
• How do we counsel patients about fertility potential following procedural treatments?

Uterine fibroids are a common condition that affects up to 80% of reproductive-age women.¹ Many women with fibroids are asymptomatic, but some experience symptoms that profoundly disrupt their lives, such as abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and bulk symptoms including bladder and bowel dysfunction.² Although hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment for symptomatic fibroids, many women seek more conservative management. Hormonal treatment, such as contraceptive pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, can improve heavy menstrual bleeding and anemia.³ Additionally, uterine artery embolization is a nonsurgical uterine-sparing option. However, these treatments are not ideal options for women who want to conceive.⁴ For reproductive-age women who desire future fertility, myomectomy has been the standard of care. Unfortunately, by the time patients become symptomatic from their fibroids and seek care, they may have numerous and/or sizable fibroids that result in high blood loss, surgical scarring, and the probable need for cesarean delivery (FIGURES 1 and 2).⁵

For patients who desire future conception, treatment of uterine fibroids poses a challenge in which optimizing symptomatic improvement must be balanced with protecting fertility and improving reproductive outcomes. In recent years, high-intensity focused ultrasound (FUS) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been presented as less invasive, uterine-sparing alternatives for fibroid treatment that could potentially provide that balance.

In this article, we briefly review the available uterine-sparing fibroid treatments and their outcomes and then focus specifically on RFA as a possible option to address the fibroid treatment gap for reproductive-age women who desire future fertility.

Overview of uterine-sparing treatments

Two approaches can be pursued for conservative fibroid treatment: fibroid removal and fibroid necrosis (TABLE 1). We focus this review on outcomes for the most widely available of these treatments.

Myomectomy

For reproductive-age women who wish to conceive, surgical removal of fibroids has been the standard of care for symptomatic patients. Myomectomy can be performed via laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery, and hysteroscopy. The mode of surgery depends on the fibroid characteristics (size, number, and location) and the surgeon’s skill set. Although some variation in the data exists, overall surgical outcomes, including blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of stay, are generally more favorable for minimally invasive approaches compared with laparotomy, with no significant differences in fibroid recurrence or reproductive outcomes (live birth rate, miscarriage rate, and cesarean delivery rate).⁶ This comes at the expense of longer operating time compared with laparotomy.⁷

While improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding and pelvic pain is reliable and usually significant after myomectomy,⁸ reproductive implications also warrant consideration. Myomectomy is associated with subsequent uterine adhesion formation, with some studies finding rates up to 83% to 94% depending on the surgical approach and the number of fibroids removed.⁹ These adhesions can impair fertility success.¹⁰ Myomectomy also is associated with high rates of cesarean delivery,⁵ invasive placentation (including placenta accreta spectrum),¹¹ and uterine rupture.¹² While the latter 2 complications are rare, they potentially can be catastrophic and should be kept in mind.

Continue to: Uterine artery embolization...

Uterine artery embolization

As a nonsurgical alternative to myomectomy, uterine artery embolization (UAE) has gained popularity as a conservative fibroid treatment since it was introduced in 1995. It is less invasive than myomectomy, a benefit for patients who decline surgery or are not ideal candidates for surgery.¹³ Evidence suggests that UAE produces overall comparable symptomatic improvement compared with myomectomy. One study showed no significant differences between UAE and myomectomy in terms of decreased uterine volume and menstrual bleeding at 6-month follow-up.¹⁴ In terms of long-term outcomes, a large multicenter study showed no significant difference in reintervention rates at 7 years posttreatment between UAE and myomectomy (8.9% vs 11.2%, respectively), and a significantly higher rate of improved menstrual bleeding with UAE (79.4% vs 49.5%), with no significant difference in bulk symptoms.¹⁵ The evidence is not entirely consistent, as other studies have shown increased rates of reintervention with UAE,^8,16 but overall UAE can be considered a reasonable alternative to myomectomy in terms of symptomatic improvement.

Pregnancy outcomes data, however, are mixed, and UAE often is not recommended for patients with future fertility plans. In a large review article that compared minimally invasive fibroid treatments, UAE was associated with a lower live birth rate compared with myomectomy and ablation techniques (60.6% for UAE, 75.6% for myomectomy, and 70.5% for ablation), and it also had the highest rate of miscarriage (27.4% for UAE vs 19.0% for myomectomy and 11.9% for ablation) and abnormal placentation.¹² While UAE remains an effective option for conservative treatment of symptomatic fibroids, it appears to have a worse impact on reproductive outcomes compared with myomectomy or ablative treatments.

Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound

Emerging as a noninvasive ablation treatment for fibroids, magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) uses targeted high-intensity ultrasound pulses to cause thermal and mechanical fibroid tissue disruption.¹⁷ Data on this treatment are less robust given that it is newer than myomectomy or UAE. One study showed a decrease in fibroid volume by 12% at 1 month and 15% at 6 months, with 37.1% of patients reporting marked improvement in symptoms and an additional 31.4% reporting partial improvement; these are modest numbers compared with other treatment approaches.¹⁸ Another study showed more favorable outcomes, with 74% of patients reporting clinically significant improvement in bleeding and pain, and a 12.7% reintervention rate, comparable to rates reported for UAE and myomectomy.¹⁹

Because MRgFUS is newer than UAE or myomectomy, data are limited in terms of pregnancy outcomes, particularly because initial trials excluded women with future fertility plans due to lack of knowledge regarding pregnancy safety. A follow-up case series from one of the initial studies showed a decreased miscarriage rate compared with UAE, a term delivery rate of 93%, and a similar rate of abnormal placentation.²⁰ A more recent systematic review concluded that reproductive outcomes were noninferior to myomectomy; however, the outcomes data for MRgFUS were heterogenous and many studies did not report pregnancy rates.²¹

Overall, MRgFUS appears to be an effective alternative approach for symptomatic fibroids, but the long-term data are not yet conclusive and information on pregnancy safety and outcomes largely is lacking. Recent reviews have not made definitive statements on whether MRgFUS should be offered to patients desiring future fertility.

Continue to: RFA is a promising option...

RFA is a promising option

RFA is another noninvasive fibroid ablation technique that has become more widely adopted in recent years. Here, we describe the basics of RFA and its impact on fibroid symptoms and reproductive outcomes.

The RFA technique

RFA uses hyperthermic energy from a handpiece and real-time ultrasound for targeted coagulative necrosis via a laparoscopic (L-RFA) or transcervical (TC-RFA) approach.²² A comparison between the 2 devices available on the market in the United States is shown in TABLE 2. Ultrasound guidance allows placement of radiofrequency needles directly into the fibroid to target local treatment to the fibroid tissue only. Once the fibroid undergoes coagulative necrosis, the process of fibroid resorption and volume reduction occurs over weeks to months, depending on the fibroid size.

Impact on fibroid symptoms

Both laparoscopic and transcervical RFA approaches have shown significant decreases in pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids and a low reintervention rate that emphasizes the durability of their impact.

A feasibility and safety study of a TC-RFA device prior to the primary clinical trials found only a 4.3% reintervention rate in the first 18 months postprocedure.²³ The pivotal clinical trial of a TC-RFA device that followed also reported a low 5.5% reintervention rate in the first 24 months postprocedure, with significant improvement in health-related quality-of-life and high patient satisfaction²⁴ (results shown in TABLE 2, along with trial results for an L-RFA device). A subsequent study of TC-RFA reported that symptomatic improvement persisted at 3-year follow-up, with a 9.2% reintervention rate comparable to existing fibroid treatments such as myomectomy and UAE.²⁵ The original L-RFA trial also has shown similar positive results at 2-year follow-up, with a low reintervention rate of 4.8% after treatment, and similar patient satisfaction and quality-of-life improvements as TC-RFA.²⁶ While long-term data are limited by only recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a TC-RFA device in 2018, one study followed clinical trial patients for a mean duration of 64 months. This study found no surgical reinterventions in the first 3.5 years posttreatment and a persistent reduction in fibroid symptoms from baseline 64.9 points to 27.6 points, as assessed by a validated symptom severity scale (out of 100 points).²⁷ Similar improvements in health-related quality-of life-were also found to persist for years posttreatment.⁴

In a large systematic review that compared L-RFA, MRgFUS, UAE, and myomectomy, L-RFA had similar improvement rates in quality-of-life and symptom severity scores compared with myomectomy, with no significant difference in reintervention rates.²⁸ This review also noted minimal heterogeneity among RFA meta-analyses data in contrast to significant heterogeneity among UAE and myomectomy data.

Reproductive outcomes

Similar to MRgFUS, the initial studies of RFA devices largely excluded women with future fertility plans, as data on safety were lacking. However, many RFA devices are now on the market across the globe, and subsequent pregnancies have been tracked and reported.

A large case series that included clinical trials and commercial settings reported a miscarriage rate (13.3%) similar to that of the general obstetric population and no cases of uterine rupture, invasive placentation, preterm delivery, or placental abruption.²⁹ Other case series have reported live birth rates similar those with myomectomy, and safe and favorable pregnancy outcomes with RFA have been supported by larger systematic reviews of all ablation techniques.¹²

Continue to: Uterine impact...

Uterine impact

One study of TC-RFA patients showed a greater than 65% reduction in fibroid volume (with a 90% reduction in fibroid volume for fibroids larger than 6 cm prior to RFA), and 54% of patients reported complete resolution of symptoms, with another 36% reporting decreased symptoms.³⁰ Similar decreases in fibroid volume, ranging from 65% to 84%, have been reported in numerous follow-up studies, with significant decreases in bleeding and pain in 78% to 88% of patients.^23,31-33 Additionally, a large secondary analysis of a TC-RFA clinical trial showed that patients did not have any significant decrease in uterine wall thickness or integrity on follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging compared with baseline measurements, and they did not have any new myometrial scars (assessed as nonperfused linear areas).²²

As with other ablation techniques, most data on RFA pregnancy outcomes come from case series, and further research and evaluation are needed. Existing studies, however, have demonstrated promising aspects of RFA that argue its usefulness in women with fertility plans.

A prospective trial that evaluated intrauterine adhesion formation with use of a TC-RFA device found no new adhesions on 6-week follow-up hysteroscopy compared with baseline pre-RFA hysteroscopy.³⁴ Because intrauterine adhesion formation and uterine rupture are both significant concerns with other uterine-sparing fibroid treatment approaches such as myomectomy, these findings suggest that RFA may be a better alternative for women who are planning future pregnancies, as they may have increased fertility success and decreased catastrophic complications.

The consensus is growing that RFA is a safe and effective option for women who desire minimally invasive fibroid treatment and want to preserve fertility.

Unique benefits of RFA

In this article, we highlight RFA as an emerging treatment option for fibroid management, particularly for women who desire a uterine-sparing approach to preserve their reproductive options. Although myomectomy has been the standard of care for many years, with UAE as the alternative nonsurgical treatment, neither approach provides the best balance between symptomatic improvement and reproductive outcomes, and neither is without pregnancy risks. In addition, many women with symptomatic fibroids do not desire future conception but decline fibroid removal for religious or personal reasons. RFA offers these women an alternative minimally invasive option for uterine-sparing fibroid treatment.

RFA presents a unique “incision-free” fibroid treatment that is truly minimally invasive. This technique minimizes the risks associated with myomectomy, such as intra-abdominal adhesions, intrauterine adhesions (Asherman syndrome), need for cesarean delivery, and pregnancy complications such as uterine rupture or invasive placentation. Furthermore, the evolution of an RFA transcervical approach has enabled treatment with no abdominal or uterine incisions, thus offering all the above reproductive benefits as well as the operative benefits of a faster recovery, less pain, and less risk of intraperitoneal surgical complications.

While many women desire uterine-sparing fibroid treatment even without future fertility plans, the larger question is whether we should treat fibroids more strategically for women who desire future fertility. Myomectomy and UAE are effective and reliable in terms of fibroid symptomatic improvement, but RFA promises more beneficial reproductive outcomes. The ability to avoid uterine myometrial incisions and still attain significant symptomatic improvement should be prioritized in these patients.

Currently, RFA is not approved by the FDA as a fertility-enabling treatment, and these patients have been largely excluded from RFA studies. However, the reproductive-age patient who desires future conception may benefit most from RFA. Furthermore, RFA technology also could address the gap in uterine-sparing treatment for reproductive-age women with adenomyosis. Although a complete review of adenomyosis treatment is beyond the scope of this article, recent studies show that RFA produces similar improvement in both uterine volume and symptom severity in women with adenomyosis.^35-37 ●

Uterine fibroids are a common condition that affects up to 80% of reproductive-age women.¹ Many women with fibroids are asymptomatic, but some experience symptoms that profoundly disrupt their lives, such as abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and bulk symptoms including bladder and bowel dysfunction.² Although hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment for symptomatic fibroids, many women seek more conservative management. Hormonal treatment, such as contraceptive pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, can improve heavy menstrual bleeding and anemia.³ Additionally, uterine artery embolization is a nonsurgical uterine-sparing option. However, these treatments are not ideal options for women who want to conceive.⁴ For reproductive-age women who desire future fertility, myomectomy has been the standard of care. Unfortunately, by the time patients become symptomatic from their fibroids and seek care, they may have numerous and/or sizable fibroids that result in high blood loss, surgical scarring, and the probable need for cesarean delivery (FIGURES 1 and 2).⁵

For patients who desire future conception, treatment of uterine fibroids poses a challenge in which optimizing symptomatic improvement must be balanced with protecting fertility and improving reproductive outcomes. In recent years, high-intensity focused ultrasound (FUS) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been presented as less invasive, uterine-sparing alternatives for fibroid treatment that could potentially provide that balance.

In this article, we briefly review the available uterine-sparing fibroid treatments and their outcomes and then focus specifically on RFA as a possible option to address the fibroid treatment gap for reproductive-age women who desire future fertility.

Overview of uterine-sparing treatments

Two approaches can be pursued for conservative fibroid treatment: fibroid removal and fibroid necrosis (TABLE 1). We focus this review on outcomes for the most widely available of these treatments.

Myomectomy

For reproductive-age women who wish to conceive, surgical removal of fibroids has been the standard of care for symptomatic patients. Myomectomy can be performed via laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery, and hysteroscopy. The mode of surgery depends on the fibroid characteristics (size, number, and location) and the surgeon’s skill set. Although some variation in the data exists, overall surgical outcomes, including blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of stay, are generally more favorable for minimally invasive approaches compared with laparotomy, with no significant differences in fibroid recurrence or reproductive outcomes (live birth rate, miscarriage rate, and cesarean delivery rate).⁶ This comes at the expense of longer operating time compared with laparotomy.⁷

While improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding and pelvic pain is reliable and usually significant after myomectomy,⁸ reproductive implications also warrant consideration. Myomectomy is associated with subsequent uterine adhesion formation, with some studies finding rates up to 83% to 94% depending on the surgical approach and the number of fibroids removed.⁹ These adhesions can impair fertility success.¹⁰ Myomectomy also is associated with high rates of cesarean delivery,⁵ invasive placentation (including placenta accreta spectrum),¹¹ and uterine rupture.¹² While the latter 2 complications are rare, they potentially can be catastrophic and should be kept in mind.

Continue to: Uterine artery embolization...

Uterine artery embolization

As a nonsurgical alternative to myomectomy, uterine artery embolization (UAE) has gained popularity as a conservative fibroid treatment since it was introduced in 1995. It is less invasive than myomectomy, a benefit for patients who decline surgery or are not ideal candidates for surgery.¹³ Evidence suggests that UAE produces overall comparable symptomatic improvement compared with myomectomy. One study showed no significant differences between UAE and myomectomy in terms of decreased uterine volume and menstrual bleeding at 6-month follow-up.¹⁴ In terms of long-term outcomes, a large multicenter study showed no significant difference in reintervention rates at 7 years posttreatment between UAE and myomectomy (8.9% vs 11.2%, respectively), and a significantly higher rate of improved menstrual bleeding with UAE (79.4% vs 49.5%), with no significant difference in bulk symptoms.¹⁵ The evidence is not entirely consistent, as other studies have shown increased rates of reintervention with UAE,^8,16 but overall UAE can be considered a reasonable alternative to myomectomy in terms of symptomatic improvement.

Pregnancy outcomes data, however, are mixed, and UAE often is not recommended for patients with future fertility plans. In a large review article that compared minimally invasive fibroid treatments, UAE was associated with a lower live birth rate compared with myomectomy and ablation techniques (60.6% for UAE, 75.6% for myomectomy, and 70.5% for ablation), and it also had the highest rate of miscarriage (27.4% for UAE vs 19.0% for myomectomy and 11.9% for ablation) and abnormal placentation.¹² While UAE remains an effective option for conservative treatment of symptomatic fibroids, it appears to have a worse impact on reproductive outcomes compared with myomectomy or ablative treatments.

Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound

Emerging as a noninvasive ablation treatment for fibroids, magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) uses targeted high-intensity ultrasound pulses to cause thermal and mechanical fibroid tissue disruption.¹⁷ Data on this treatment are less robust given that it is newer than myomectomy or UAE. One study showed a decrease in fibroid volume by 12% at 1 month and 15% at 6 months, with 37.1% of patients reporting marked improvement in symptoms and an additional 31.4% reporting partial improvement; these are modest numbers compared with other treatment approaches.¹⁸ Another study showed more favorable outcomes, with 74% of patients reporting clinically significant improvement in bleeding and pain, and a 12.7% reintervention rate, comparable to rates reported for UAE and myomectomy.¹⁹

Because MRgFUS is newer than UAE or myomectomy, data are limited in terms of pregnancy outcomes, particularly because initial trials excluded women with future fertility plans due to lack of knowledge regarding pregnancy safety. A follow-up case series from one of the initial studies showed a decreased miscarriage rate compared with UAE, a term delivery rate of 93%, and a similar rate of abnormal placentation.²⁰ A more recent systematic review concluded that reproductive outcomes were noninferior to myomectomy; however, the outcomes data for MRgFUS were heterogenous and many studies did not report pregnancy rates.²¹

Overall, MRgFUS appears to be an effective alternative approach for symptomatic fibroids, but the long-term data are not yet conclusive and information on pregnancy safety and outcomes largely is lacking. Recent reviews have not made definitive statements on whether MRgFUS should be offered to patients desiring future fertility.

Continue to: RFA is a promising option...

RFA is a promising option

RFA is another noninvasive fibroid ablation technique that has become more widely adopted in recent years. Here, we describe the basics of RFA and its impact on fibroid symptoms and reproductive outcomes.

The RFA technique

RFA uses hyperthermic energy from a handpiece and real-time ultrasound for targeted coagulative necrosis via a laparoscopic (L-RFA) or transcervical (TC-RFA) approach.²² A comparison between the 2 devices available on the market in the United States is shown in TABLE 2. Ultrasound guidance allows placement of radiofrequency needles directly into the fibroid to target local treatment to the fibroid tissue only. Once the fibroid undergoes coagulative necrosis, the process of fibroid resorption and volume reduction occurs over weeks to months, depending on the fibroid size.

Impact on fibroid symptoms

Both laparoscopic and transcervical RFA approaches have shown significant decreases in pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids and a low reintervention rate that emphasizes the durability of their impact.

A feasibility and safety study of a TC-RFA device prior to the primary clinical trials found only a 4.3% reintervention rate in the first 18 months postprocedure.²³ The pivotal clinical trial of a TC-RFA device that followed also reported a low 5.5% reintervention rate in the first 24 months postprocedure, with significant improvement in health-related quality-of-life and high patient satisfaction²⁴ (results shown in TABLE 2, along with trial results for an L-RFA device). A subsequent study of TC-RFA reported that symptomatic improvement persisted at 3-year follow-up, with a 9.2% reintervention rate comparable to existing fibroid treatments such as myomectomy and UAE.²⁵ The original L-RFA trial also has shown similar positive results at 2-year follow-up, with a low reintervention rate of 4.8% after treatment, and similar patient satisfaction and quality-of-life improvements as TC-RFA.²⁶ While long-term data are limited by only recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a TC-RFA device in 2018, one study followed clinical trial patients for a mean duration of 64 months. This study found no surgical reinterventions in the first 3.5 years posttreatment and a persistent reduction in fibroid symptoms from baseline 64.9 points to 27.6 points, as assessed by a validated symptom severity scale (out of 100 points).²⁷ Similar improvements in health-related quality-of life-were also found to persist for years posttreatment.⁴

In a large systematic review that compared L-RFA, MRgFUS, UAE, and myomectomy, L-RFA had similar improvement rates in quality-of-life and symptom severity scores compared with myomectomy, with no significant difference in reintervention rates.²⁸ This review also noted minimal heterogeneity among RFA meta-analyses data in contrast to significant heterogeneity among UAE and myomectomy data.

Reproductive outcomes

Similar to MRgFUS, the initial studies of RFA devices largely excluded women with future fertility plans, as data on safety were lacking. However, many RFA devices are now on the market across the globe, and subsequent pregnancies have been tracked and reported.

A large case series that included clinical trials and commercial settings reported a miscarriage rate (13.3%) similar to that of the general obstetric population and no cases of uterine rupture, invasive placentation, preterm delivery, or placental abruption.²⁹ Other case series have reported live birth rates similar those with myomectomy, and safe and favorable pregnancy outcomes with RFA have been supported by larger systematic reviews of all ablation techniques.¹²

Continue to: Uterine impact...

Uterine impact

One study of TC-RFA patients showed a greater than 65% reduction in fibroid volume (with a 90% reduction in fibroid volume for fibroids larger than 6 cm prior to RFA), and 54% of patients reported complete resolution of symptoms, with another 36% reporting decreased symptoms.³⁰ Similar decreases in fibroid volume, ranging from 65% to 84%, have been reported in numerous follow-up studies, with significant decreases in bleeding and pain in 78% to 88% of patients.^23,31-33 Additionally, a large secondary analysis of a TC-RFA clinical trial showed that patients did not have any significant decrease in uterine wall thickness or integrity on follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging compared with baseline measurements, and they did not have any new myometrial scars (assessed as nonperfused linear areas).²²

As with other ablation techniques, most data on RFA pregnancy outcomes come from case series, and further research and evaluation are needed. Existing studies, however, have demonstrated promising aspects of RFA that argue its usefulness in women with fertility plans.

A prospective trial that evaluated intrauterine adhesion formation with use of a TC-RFA device found no new adhesions on 6-week follow-up hysteroscopy compared with baseline pre-RFA hysteroscopy.³⁴ Because intrauterine adhesion formation and uterine rupture are both significant concerns with other uterine-sparing fibroid treatment approaches such as myomectomy, these findings suggest that RFA may be a better alternative for women who are planning future pregnancies, as they may have increased fertility success and decreased catastrophic complications.

The consensus is growing that RFA is a safe and effective option for women who desire minimally invasive fibroid treatment and want to preserve fertility.

Unique benefits of RFA

In this article, we highlight RFA as an emerging treatment option for fibroid management, particularly for women who desire a uterine-sparing approach to preserve their reproductive options. Although myomectomy has been the standard of care for many years, with UAE as the alternative nonsurgical treatment, neither approach provides the best balance between symptomatic improvement and reproductive outcomes, and neither is without pregnancy risks. In addition, many women with symptomatic fibroids do not desire future conception but decline fibroid removal for religious or personal reasons. RFA offers these women an alternative minimally invasive option for uterine-sparing fibroid treatment.

RFA presents a unique “incision-free” fibroid treatment that is truly minimally invasive. This technique minimizes the risks associated with myomectomy, such as intra-abdominal adhesions, intrauterine adhesions (Asherman syndrome), need for cesarean delivery, and pregnancy complications such as uterine rupture or invasive placentation. Furthermore, the evolution of an RFA transcervical approach has enabled treatment with no abdominal or uterine incisions, thus offering all the above reproductive benefits as well as the operative benefits of a faster recovery, less pain, and less risk of intraperitoneal surgical complications.

While many women desire uterine-sparing fibroid treatment even without future fertility plans, the larger question is whether we should treat fibroids more strategically for women who desire future fertility. Myomectomy and UAE are effective and reliable in terms of fibroid symptomatic improvement, but RFA promises more beneficial reproductive outcomes. The ability to avoid uterine myometrial incisions and still attain significant symptomatic improvement should be prioritized in these patients.

Currently, RFA is not approved by the FDA as a fertility-enabling treatment, and these patients have been largely excluded from RFA studies. However, the reproductive-age patient who desires future conception may benefit most from RFA. Furthermore, RFA technology also could address the gap in uterine-sparing treatment for reproductive-age women with adenomyosis. Although a complete review of adenomyosis treatment is beyond the scope of this article, recent studies show that RFA produces similar improvement in both uterine volume and symptom severity in women with adenomyosis.^35-37 ●

Uterine fibroids are a common condition that affects up to 80% of reproductive-age women.¹ Many women with fibroids are asymptomatic, but some experience symptoms that profoundly disrupt their lives, such as abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and bulk symptoms including bladder and bowel dysfunction.² Although hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment for symptomatic fibroids, many women seek more conservative management. Hormonal treatment, such as contraceptive pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, can improve heavy menstrual bleeding and anemia.³ Additionally, uterine artery embolization is a nonsurgical uterine-sparing option. However, these treatments are not ideal options for women who want to conceive.⁴ For reproductive-age women who desire future fertility, myomectomy has been the standard of care. Unfortunately, by the time patients become symptomatic from their fibroids and seek care, they may have numerous and/or sizable fibroids that result in high blood loss, surgical scarring, and the probable need for cesarean delivery (FIGURES 1 and 2).⁵

For patients who desire future conception, treatment of uterine fibroids poses a challenge in which optimizing symptomatic improvement must be balanced with protecting fertility and improving reproductive outcomes. In recent years, high-intensity focused ultrasound (FUS) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been presented as less invasive, uterine-sparing alternatives for fibroid treatment that could potentially provide that balance.

In this article, we briefly review the available uterine-sparing fibroid treatments and their outcomes and then focus specifically on RFA as a possible option to address the fibroid treatment gap for reproductive-age women who desire future fertility.

Overview of uterine-sparing treatments

Two approaches can be pursued for conservative fibroid treatment: fibroid removal and fibroid necrosis (TABLE 1). We focus this review on outcomes for the most widely available of these treatments.

Myomectomy

For reproductive-age women who wish to conceive, surgical removal of fibroids has been the standard of care for symptomatic patients. Myomectomy can be performed via laparotomy, laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery, and hysteroscopy. The mode of surgery depends on the fibroid characteristics (size, number, and location) and the surgeon’s skill set. Although some variation in the data exists, overall surgical outcomes, including blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of stay, are generally more favorable for minimally invasive approaches compared with laparotomy, with no significant differences in fibroid recurrence or reproductive outcomes (live birth rate, miscarriage rate, and cesarean delivery rate).⁶ This comes at the expense of longer operating time compared with laparotomy.⁷

While improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding and pelvic pain is reliable and usually significant after myomectomy,⁸ reproductive implications also warrant consideration. Myomectomy is associated with subsequent uterine adhesion formation, with some studies finding rates up to 83% to 94% depending on the surgical approach and the number of fibroids removed.⁹ These adhesions can impair fertility success.¹⁰ Myomectomy also is associated with high rates of cesarean delivery,⁵ invasive placentation (including placenta accreta spectrum),¹¹ and uterine rupture.¹² While the latter 2 complications are rare, they potentially can be catastrophic and should be kept in mind.

Continue to: Uterine artery embolization...

Uterine artery embolization

As a nonsurgical alternative to myomectomy, uterine artery embolization (UAE) has gained popularity as a conservative fibroid treatment since it was introduced in 1995. It is less invasive than myomectomy, a benefit for patients who decline surgery or are not ideal candidates for surgery.¹³ Evidence suggests that UAE produces overall comparable symptomatic improvement compared with myomectomy. One study showed no significant differences between UAE and myomectomy in terms of decreased uterine volume and menstrual bleeding at 6-month follow-up.¹⁴ In terms of long-term outcomes, a large multicenter study showed no significant difference in reintervention rates at 7 years posttreatment between UAE and myomectomy (8.9% vs 11.2%, respectively), and a significantly higher rate of improved menstrual bleeding with UAE (79.4% vs 49.5%), with no significant difference in bulk symptoms.¹⁵ The evidence is not entirely consistent, as other studies have shown increased rates of reintervention with UAE,^8,16 but overall UAE can be considered a reasonable alternative to myomectomy in terms of symptomatic improvement.

Pregnancy outcomes data, however, are mixed, and UAE often is not recommended for patients with future fertility plans. In a large review article that compared minimally invasive fibroid treatments, UAE was associated with a lower live birth rate compared with myomectomy and ablation techniques (60.6% for UAE, 75.6% for myomectomy, and 70.5% for ablation), and it also had the highest rate of miscarriage (27.4% for UAE vs 19.0% for myomectomy and 11.9% for ablation) and abnormal placentation.¹² While UAE remains an effective option for conservative treatment of symptomatic fibroids, it appears to have a worse impact on reproductive outcomes compared with myomectomy or ablative treatments.

Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound

Emerging as a noninvasive ablation treatment for fibroids, magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) uses targeted high-intensity ultrasound pulses to cause thermal and mechanical fibroid tissue disruption.¹⁷ Data on this treatment are less robust given that it is newer than myomectomy or UAE. One study showed a decrease in fibroid volume by 12% at 1 month and 15% at 6 months, with 37.1% of patients reporting marked improvement in symptoms and an additional 31.4% reporting partial improvement; these are modest numbers compared with other treatment approaches.¹⁸ Another study showed more favorable outcomes, with 74% of patients reporting clinically significant improvement in bleeding and pain, and a 12.7% reintervention rate, comparable to rates reported for UAE and myomectomy.¹⁹

Because MRgFUS is newer than UAE or myomectomy, data are limited in terms of pregnancy outcomes, particularly because initial trials excluded women with future fertility plans due to lack of knowledge regarding pregnancy safety. A follow-up case series from one of the initial studies showed a decreased miscarriage rate compared with UAE, a term delivery rate of 93%, and a similar rate of abnormal placentation.²⁰ A more recent systematic review concluded that reproductive outcomes were noninferior to myomectomy; however, the outcomes data for MRgFUS were heterogenous and many studies did not report pregnancy rates.²¹

Overall, MRgFUS appears to be an effective alternative approach for symptomatic fibroids, but the long-term data are not yet conclusive and information on pregnancy safety and outcomes largely is lacking. Recent reviews have not made definitive statements on whether MRgFUS should be offered to patients desiring future fertility.

Continue to: RFA is a promising option...

RFA is a promising option

RFA is another noninvasive fibroid ablation technique that has become more widely adopted in recent years. Here, we describe the basics of RFA and its impact on fibroid symptoms and reproductive outcomes.

The RFA technique

RFA uses hyperthermic energy from a handpiece and real-time ultrasound for targeted coagulative necrosis via a laparoscopic (L-RFA) or transcervical (TC-RFA) approach.²² A comparison between the 2 devices available on the market in the United States is shown in TABLE 2. Ultrasound guidance allows placement of radiofrequency needles directly into the fibroid to target local treatment to the fibroid tissue only. Once the fibroid undergoes coagulative necrosis, the process of fibroid resorption and volume reduction occurs over weeks to months, depending on the fibroid size.

Impact on fibroid symptoms

Both laparoscopic and transcervical RFA approaches have shown significant decreases in pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids and a low reintervention rate that emphasizes the durability of their impact.

A feasibility and safety study of a TC-RFA device prior to the primary clinical trials found only a 4.3% reintervention rate in the first 18 months postprocedure.²³ The pivotal clinical trial of a TC-RFA device that followed also reported a low 5.5% reintervention rate in the first 24 months postprocedure, with significant improvement in health-related quality-of-life and high patient satisfaction²⁴ (results shown in TABLE 2, along with trial results for an L-RFA device). A subsequent study of TC-RFA reported that symptomatic improvement persisted at 3-year follow-up, with a 9.2% reintervention rate comparable to existing fibroid treatments such as myomectomy and UAE.²⁵ The original L-RFA trial also has shown similar positive results at 2-year follow-up, with a low reintervention rate of 4.8% after treatment, and similar patient satisfaction and quality-of-life improvements as TC-RFA.²⁶ While long-term data are limited by only recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a TC-RFA device in 2018, one study followed clinical trial patients for a mean duration of 64 months. This study found no surgical reinterventions in the first 3.5 years posttreatment and a persistent reduction in fibroid symptoms from baseline 64.9 points to 27.6 points, as assessed by a validated symptom severity scale (out of 100 points).²⁷ Similar improvements in health-related quality-of life-were also found to persist for years posttreatment.⁴

In a large systematic review that compared L-RFA, MRgFUS, UAE, and myomectomy, L-RFA had similar improvement rates in quality-of-life and symptom severity scores compared with myomectomy, with no significant difference in reintervention rates.²⁸ This review also noted minimal heterogeneity among RFA meta-analyses data in contrast to significant heterogeneity among UAE and myomectomy data.

Reproductive outcomes

Similar to MRgFUS, the initial studies of RFA devices largely excluded women with future fertility plans, as data on safety were lacking. However, many RFA devices are now on the market across the globe, and subsequent pregnancies have been tracked and reported.

A large case series that included clinical trials and commercial settings reported a miscarriage rate (13.3%) similar to that of the general obstetric population and no cases of uterine rupture, invasive placentation, preterm delivery, or placental abruption.²⁹ Other case series have reported live birth rates similar those with myomectomy, and safe and favorable pregnancy outcomes with RFA have been supported by larger systematic reviews of all ablation techniques.¹²

Continue to: Uterine impact...

Uterine impact

One study of TC-RFA patients showed a greater than 65% reduction in fibroid volume (with a 90% reduction in fibroid volume for fibroids larger than 6 cm prior to RFA), and 54% of patients reported complete resolution of symptoms, with another 36% reporting decreased symptoms.³⁰ Similar decreases in fibroid volume, ranging from 65% to 84%, have been reported in numerous follow-up studies, with significant decreases in bleeding and pain in 78% to 88% of patients.^23,31-33 Additionally, a large secondary analysis of a TC-RFA clinical trial showed that patients did not have any significant decrease in uterine wall thickness or integrity on follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging compared with baseline measurements, and they did not have any new myometrial scars (assessed as nonperfused linear areas).²²

As with other ablation techniques, most data on RFA pregnancy outcomes come from case series, and further research and evaluation are needed. Existing studies, however, have demonstrated promising aspects of RFA that argue its usefulness in women with fertility plans.

A prospective trial that evaluated intrauterine adhesion formation with use of a TC-RFA device found no new adhesions on 6-week follow-up hysteroscopy compared with baseline pre-RFA hysteroscopy.³⁴ Because intrauterine adhesion formation and uterine rupture are both significant concerns with other uterine-sparing fibroid treatment approaches such as myomectomy, these findings suggest that RFA may be a better alternative for women who are planning future pregnancies, as they may have increased fertility success and decreased catastrophic complications.

The consensus is growing that RFA is a safe and effective option for women who desire minimally invasive fibroid treatment and want to preserve fertility.

Unique benefits of RFA

In this article, we highlight RFA as an emerging treatment option for fibroid management, particularly for women who desire a uterine-sparing approach to preserve their reproductive options. Although myomectomy has been the standard of care for many years, with UAE as the alternative nonsurgical treatment, neither approach provides the best balance between symptomatic improvement and reproductive outcomes, and neither is without pregnancy risks. In addition, many women with symptomatic fibroids do not desire future conception but decline fibroid removal for religious or personal reasons. RFA offers these women an alternative minimally invasive option for uterine-sparing fibroid treatment.

RFA presents a unique “incision-free” fibroid treatment that is truly minimally invasive. This technique minimizes the risks associated with myomectomy, such as intra-abdominal adhesions, intrauterine adhesions (Asherman syndrome), need for cesarean delivery, and pregnancy complications such as uterine rupture or invasive placentation. Furthermore, the evolution of an RFA transcervical approach has enabled treatment with no abdominal or uterine incisions, thus offering all the above reproductive benefits as well as the operative benefits of a faster recovery, less pain, and less risk of intraperitoneal surgical complications.

While many women desire uterine-sparing fibroid treatment even without future fertility plans, the larger question is whether we should treat fibroids more strategically for women who desire future fertility. Myomectomy and UAE are effective and reliable in terms of fibroid symptomatic improvement, but RFA promises more beneficial reproductive outcomes. The ability to avoid uterine myometrial incisions and still attain significant symptomatic improvement should be prioritized in these patients.

Currently, RFA is not approved by the FDA as a fertility-enabling treatment, and these patients have been largely excluded from RFA studies. However, the reproductive-age patient who desires future conception may benefit most from RFA. Furthermore, RFA technology also could address the gap in uterine-sparing treatment for reproductive-age women with adenomyosis. Although a complete review of adenomyosis treatment is beyond the scope of this article, recent studies show that RFA produces similar improvement in both uterine volume and symptom severity in women with adenomyosis.^35-37 ●

Through the years, the surgical approach to hysterectomy has expanded from its early beginnings of being performed only through an abdominal or transvaginal route with traditional surgical clamps and suture. The late 1980s saw the advent of the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and from that point forward several additional hysterectomy methods evolved, including today’s robotic approaches.

Although clinical evidence and societal endorsements support vaginal hysterectomy as a superior high-value modality, it remains one of the least performed among all available routes.^1-3 In an analysis of inpatient hysterectomies published by Wright and colleagues in 2013, 16.7% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, a number that essentially has remained steady throughout the ensuing years.⁴

Attempts to improve the application of vaginal hysterectomy have been made.⁵ These include the development of various curriculum and simulation-based medical education programs on vaginal surgical skills training and acquisition in the hopes of improving utilization.⁶ An interesting recent development is the rethinking of vaginal hysterectomy by several surgeons globally who are applying facets of the various hysterectomy methods to a transvaginal approach known as vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).^7,8 Unique to this thinking is the incorporation of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation.

Although I have not yet incorporated this approach in my surgical armamentarium at Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, I am intrigued by the possibility that this technique may serve as a rescue for vaginal hysterectomies that are at risk of conversion or of not being performed at all.⁹

At this time, vNOTES is not a standard of care and should be performed only by highly specialized surgeons. However, in the spirit of this Update on minimally invasive surgery and to keep our readers abreast of burgeoning techniques, I am delighted to bring you this overview by Dr. Xiaoming Guan, one of the pioneers of this surgical approach, and Dr. Tamisa Koythong and Dr. Juan Liu. I hope you find this recent development in hysterectomy of interest.

—Arnold P. Advincula, MD

Continue to: Development and evolution of NOTES...

Development and evolution of NOTES 

Over the past few decades, emphasis has shifted from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery because of its proven significant advantages in patient care, such as improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, shorter postoperative recovery, and decreased postoperative pain and blood loss.¹⁰  Advances in laparoendoscopic surgery and instrumentation, including robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and most recently natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), reflect ongoing innovative developments in the field of minimally invasive surgery. 

Here, we provide a brief literature review of the NOTES technique, focus on its application in gynecologic surgery, and describe how we perform NOTES at our institution. 

NOTES application in gynecology 

With NOTES, peritoneal access is gained through a natural orifice (such as the mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus) to perform endoscopic surgery, occasionally without requiring an abdominal incision. First described in 2004, transgastric peritoneoscopy was performed in a porcine model, and shortly thereafter the first transgastric appendectomy was performed in humans.^11,12 The technique has further been adopted in cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrectomy, and nephrectomy procedures.¹³ 

Given rapid interest in a possible paradigm shift in the field of minimally invasive surgery, the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortiumfor Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) was formed, and the group published an article on potential barriers to accepted practice and adoption of NOTES as a realistic alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery.¹⁴ 

While transgastric and transanal access to the peritoneum were initially more popular, the risk of anastomotic leaks associated with incomplete closure and subsequent infection were thought to be prohibitively high.¹⁵ Transvaginal access was considered a safer and simpler alternative, allowing for complete closure without increased risk of infection, and this is now the route through which the majority of NOTES procedures are completed.^16,17 

The eventual application of NOTES in the field of gynecology seemed inevitable. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that transvaginal surgery is the most minimally invasive and preferred surgical route in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases.¹⁸ However, performing it can be challenging at times due to limited visualization and lack of the required skills for single-site surgery. NOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon to improve visualization through the use of laparoendoscopic instruments and to complete surgery through a transvaginal route. 

In 2012, Ahn and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility of the NOTES technique in gynecologic surgery after using it to successfully complete benign adnexal surgery in 10 patients.¹⁹ Vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) has since been further developed to include successful hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, and even lymphadenectomy in the treatment of early- stage endometrial carcinoma.^20-26 vNOTES also can be considered a rescue approach for traditional vaginal hysterectomy in instances in which it is necessary to evaluate adnexal pathology.⁹ Most recently, vNOTES hysterectomy has been reported with da Vinci Si or Xi robotic platforms.^27,28 

Continue to: Operative time, post-op stay shorter in NAOC-treated patients...

Few studies have compared outcomes with vNOTES to those with traditional laparoscopy. In 2016, Wang and colleagues compared surgical outcomes between NOTES-assisted ovarian cystectomy (NAOC) and laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC) in a case-matched study that included 277 patients.²⁹ Although mean (SD) blood loss in patients who underwent LOC was significantly less compared with those who underwent NAOC (21.4 [14.7] mL vs 31.6 [24.1] mL; P = .028), absolute blood loss in both groups was deemed minimal. Additionally, mean (SD) operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in patients undergoing NAOC compared with those having LOC (38.23 [10.19] minutes vs 53.82 [18.61] minutes; P≤.001; and 1.38 [0.55] days vs 1.82 [0.52] days; P≤.001; respectively).²⁹ 

How vNOTES hysterectomy stacked up against TLH 

In 2018, Baekelandt and colleagues compared outcomes between vNOTES hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a noninferiority single-blinded trial of 70 women.⁸ Compared with TLH, vNOTES hysterectomy was associated with shorter operative time (41 vs 75 minutes; P<.001), shorter hospital stay (0.8 vs 1.3 days; P = .004), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement (8 vs 14 U; P = .006). Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate, intraoperative complications, or hospital readmissions within 6 weeks.⁸

Approach for performing vNOTES procedures 

At our institution, Baylor College of Medicine, the majority of gynecologic surgeries are performed via either transumbilical robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopy or vNOTES. Preoperative selection of appropriate candidates for vNOTES includes: 

• low suspicion for or prior diagnosis of endometriosis with obliteration of the posterior cul-de-sac 
• no surgical history suggestive of severe adhesive disease, and 
• adequate vaginal sidewall access and sufficient descent for instrumentation for entry into the peritoneal cavity. 

In general, a key concept in vNOTES is "vaginal pull, laparoscopic push," which means that the surgeon must pull the cervix while performing vaginal entry and then push the uterus back in the peritoneal cavity to increase surgical space during laparoscopic surgery. 

Continue to: Overview of vNOTES steps...

Below we break down a description of vNOTES in 6 sections. Our patients are always placed in dorsal lithotomy position with TrenGuard (D.A. Surgical) Trendelenburg restraint. We prep the abdomen in case we need to convert to transabdominal surgery via transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery or traditional laparoscopic surgery. 

1. Vaginal entry 

Accessing the peritoneal cavity through the vagina initially proceeds like a vaginal hysterectomy. We inject dilute vasopressin (20 U in 20 mL of normal saline) circumferentially in the cervix (for hysterectomy) or in the posterior cervix in the cervicovaginal junction (for adnexal surgery without hysterectomy) for vasoconstriction and hydrodissection. 

We then incise the vaginal mucosa circumferentially with electrosurgical cautery and follow with posterior colpotomy. We find that reapproximating the posterior peritoneum to the posterior vagina with either figure-of-8 stitches or a running stitch of polyglactin 910 suture (2-0 Vicryl) assists in port placement, bleeding at the peritoneal edge, and closure of the cuff or colpotomy at the end of the case. We tag this suture with a curved hemostat. 

Depending on whether a hysterectomy is being performed, anterior colpotomy is made. Again, the anterior peritoneum is then tagged to the anterior vaginal cuff in similar fashion, and this suture is tagged with a different instrument; we typically use a straight hemostat or Sarot clamp (FIGURE 1). 

2. Traditional vaginal hysterectomy 

After colpotomy, we prefer to perform progressive clamping of the broad ligament from the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments to the level of uterine artery as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy, if feasible. 

3. Single-site port placement 

The assembled GelPOINT Mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical) (FIGURE 2) is introduced through the vagina after the Alexis wound protector (included with the kit) is first placed through the colpotomy with assistance of Babcock clamps (FIGURE 3). 

After ensuring that the green rigid ring of the Alexis wound protector is contained and completely expanded within the peritoneal cavity, we cross our previously tagged sutures as we find this helps with preventing the GelPOINT Mini access platform from inadvertently shifting out of the peritoneal cavity during surgery. The GelSeal cap is then secured and pneumoperitoneum is established (FIGURE 4). 

Continue to: 4. Laparoendoscopic surgery...

Instruments used in our surgeries include a 10-mm rigid 30° 43-cm working length laparoscope; a 44-cm LigaSure device (Medtronic); a 5-mm, 37-cm laparoscopic cobra grasping forceps and fenestrated grasper (Karl Storz); and a 5-mm, 45-cm laparoscopic suction with hydrodissection tip (Stryker) (FIGURE 5). 

vNOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon the unique ability to survey the upper abdomen. The remainder of the surgery proceeds using basic laparoscopic single-site skills. 

During vNOTES, as with all single-site surgical procedures, understanding the optimal placement of crossed instruments is important for successful completion. For example, when securing the right uterine artery, the surgeon needs to push the cervix toward the patient's left and slightly into the peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic cobra grasper with his or her left hand while then securing the uterine pedicle using the LigaSure device with his or her right hand. This is then reversed when securing the left uterine artery, where the assistant surgeon pushes the cervix toward the patient's right while the surgeon secures the pedicle ("vaginal pull, laparoscopic push") (FIGURE 6). 

This again is reiterated in securing the ovarian pedicles, which are pushed into the peritoneal cavity while being secured with the LigaSure device. 

5. Specimen removal 

For large uteri or specimens that need morcellation, a 15-mm Endo Catch specimen retrieval bag (Medtronic) is introduced through the GelPOINT Mini system. The specimen is then placed in the bag and delivered to the vagina, where contained bag morcellation is performed in standard fashion (FIGURES 7 AND 8). We utilized the "big C" technique by first grasping the specimen with a penetrating clamp. The clamp is then held in our nondominant hand and a No. 10 blade scalpel is used to create a reverse c-incision, keeping one surface of the specimen intact. This is continued until the specimen can be completely delivered through the vagina. 

Specimens that do not require morcellation can be grasped laparoscopically, brought to the GelPOINT Mini port, which is quickly disassembled, and delivered. The GelSeal cap is then reassembled. 

6. Vaginal cuff closure 

The colpotomy or vaginal cuff is closed with barbed suture continuously, as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy cuff closure. Uterosacral ligament suspension should be performed for vaginal cuff support.  
 

Through the years, the surgical approach to hysterectomy has expanded from its early beginnings of being performed only through an abdominal or transvaginal route with traditional surgical clamps and suture. The late 1980s saw the advent of the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and from that point forward several additional hysterectomy methods evolved, including today’s robotic approaches.

Although clinical evidence and societal endorsements support vaginal hysterectomy as a superior high-value modality, it remains one of the least performed among all available routes.^1-3 In an analysis of inpatient hysterectomies published by Wright and colleagues in 2013, 16.7% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, a number that essentially has remained steady throughout the ensuing years.⁴

Attempts to improve the application of vaginal hysterectomy have been made.⁵ These include the development of various curriculum and simulation-based medical education programs on vaginal surgical skills training and acquisition in the hopes of improving utilization.⁶ An interesting recent development is the rethinking of vaginal hysterectomy by several surgeons globally who are applying facets of the various hysterectomy methods to a transvaginal approach known as vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).^7,8 Unique to this thinking is the incorporation of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation.

Although I have not yet incorporated this approach in my surgical armamentarium at Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, I am intrigued by the possibility that this technique may serve as a rescue for vaginal hysterectomies that are at risk of conversion or of not being performed at all.⁹

At this time, vNOTES is not a standard of care and should be performed only by highly specialized surgeons. However, in the spirit of this Update on minimally invasive surgery and to keep our readers abreast of burgeoning techniques, I am delighted to bring you this overview by Dr. Xiaoming Guan, one of the pioneers of this surgical approach, and Dr. Tamisa Koythong and Dr. Juan Liu. I hope you find this recent development in hysterectomy of interest.

—Arnold P. Advincula, MD

Continue to: Development and evolution of NOTES...

Development and evolution of NOTES 

Over the past few decades, emphasis has shifted from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery because of its proven significant advantages in patient care, such as improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, shorter postoperative recovery, and decreased postoperative pain and blood loss.¹⁰  Advances in laparoendoscopic surgery and instrumentation, including robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and most recently natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), reflect ongoing innovative developments in the field of minimally invasive surgery. 

Here, we provide a brief literature review of the NOTES technique, focus on its application in gynecologic surgery, and describe how we perform NOTES at our institution. 

NOTES application in gynecology 

With NOTES, peritoneal access is gained through a natural orifice (such as the mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus) to perform endoscopic surgery, occasionally without requiring an abdominal incision. First described in 2004, transgastric peritoneoscopy was performed in a porcine model, and shortly thereafter the first transgastric appendectomy was performed in humans.^11,12 The technique has further been adopted in cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrectomy, and nephrectomy procedures.¹³ 

Given rapid interest in a possible paradigm shift in the field of minimally invasive surgery, the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortiumfor Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) was formed, and the group published an article on potential barriers to accepted practice and adoption of NOTES as a realistic alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery.¹⁴ 

While transgastric and transanal access to the peritoneum were initially more popular, the risk of anastomotic leaks associated with incomplete closure and subsequent infection were thought to be prohibitively high.¹⁵ Transvaginal access was considered a safer and simpler alternative, allowing for complete closure without increased risk of infection, and this is now the route through which the majority of NOTES procedures are completed.^16,17 

The eventual application of NOTES in the field of gynecology seemed inevitable. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that transvaginal surgery is the most minimally invasive and preferred surgical route in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases.¹⁸ However, performing it can be challenging at times due to limited visualization and lack of the required skills for single-site surgery. NOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon to improve visualization through the use of laparoendoscopic instruments and to complete surgery through a transvaginal route. 

In 2012, Ahn and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility of the NOTES technique in gynecologic surgery after using it to successfully complete benign adnexal surgery in 10 patients.¹⁹ Vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) has since been further developed to include successful hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, and even lymphadenectomy in the treatment of early- stage endometrial carcinoma.^20-26 vNOTES also can be considered a rescue approach for traditional vaginal hysterectomy in instances in which it is necessary to evaluate adnexal pathology.⁹ Most recently, vNOTES hysterectomy has been reported with da Vinci Si or Xi robotic platforms.^27,28 

Continue to: Operative time, post-op stay shorter in NAOC-treated patients...

Few studies have compared outcomes with vNOTES to those with traditional laparoscopy. In 2016, Wang and colleagues compared surgical outcomes between NOTES-assisted ovarian cystectomy (NAOC) and laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC) in a case-matched study that included 277 patients.²⁹ Although mean (SD) blood loss in patients who underwent LOC was significantly less compared with those who underwent NAOC (21.4 [14.7] mL vs 31.6 [24.1] mL; P = .028), absolute blood loss in both groups was deemed minimal. Additionally, mean (SD) operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in patients undergoing NAOC compared with those having LOC (38.23 [10.19] minutes vs 53.82 [18.61] minutes; P≤.001; and 1.38 [0.55] days vs 1.82 [0.52] days; P≤.001; respectively).²⁹ 

How vNOTES hysterectomy stacked up against TLH 

In 2018, Baekelandt and colleagues compared outcomes between vNOTES hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a noninferiority single-blinded trial of 70 women.⁸ Compared with TLH, vNOTES hysterectomy was associated with shorter operative time (41 vs 75 minutes; P<.001), shorter hospital stay (0.8 vs 1.3 days; P = .004), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement (8 vs 14 U; P = .006). Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate, intraoperative complications, or hospital readmissions within 6 weeks.⁸

Approach for performing vNOTES procedures 

At our institution, Baylor College of Medicine, the majority of gynecologic surgeries are performed via either transumbilical robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopy or vNOTES. Preoperative selection of appropriate candidates for vNOTES includes: 

• low suspicion for or prior diagnosis of endometriosis with obliteration of the posterior cul-de-sac 
• no surgical history suggestive of severe adhesive disease, and 
• adequate vaginal sidewall access and sufficient descent for instrumentation for entry into the peritoneal cavity. 

In general, a key concept in vNOTES is "vaginal pull, laparoscopic push," which means that the surgeon must pull the cervix while performing vaginal entry and then push the uterus back in the peritoneal cavity to increase surgical space during laparoscopic surgery. 

Continue to: Overview of vNOTES steps...

Below we break down a description of vNOTES in 6 sections. Our patients are always placed in dorsal lithotomy position with TrenGuard (D.A. Surgical) Trendelenburg restraint. We prep the abdomen in case we need to convert to transabdominal surgery via transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery or traditional laparoscopic surgery. 

1. Vaginal entry 

Accessing the peritoneal cavity through the vagina initially proceeds like a vaginal hysterectomy. We inject dilute vasopressin (20 U in 20 mL of normal saline) circumferentially in the cervix (for hysterectomy) or in the posterior cervix in the cervicovaginal junction (for adnexal surgery without hysterectomy) for vasoconstriction and hydrodissection. 

We then incise the vaginal mucosa circumferentially with electrosurgical cautery and follow with posterior colpotomy. We find that reapproximating the posterior peritoneum to the posterior vagina with either figure-of-8 stitches or a running stitch of polyglactin 910 suture (2-0 Vicryl) assists in port placement, bleeding at the peritoneal edge, and closure of the cuff or colpotomy at the end of the case. We tag this suture with a curved hemostat. 

Depending on whether a hysterectomy is being performed, anterior colpotomy is made. Again, the anterior peritoneum is then tagged to the anterior vaginal cuff in similar fashion, and this suture is tagged with a different instrument; we typically use a straight hemostat or Sarot clamp (FIGURE 1). 

2. Traditional vaginal hysterectomy 

After colpotomy, we prefer to perform progressive clamping of the broad ligament from the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments to the level of uterine artery as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy, if feasible. 

3. Single-site port placement 

The assembled GelPOINT Mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical) (FIGURE 2) is introduced through the vagina after the Alexis wound protector (included with the kit) is first placed through the colpotomy with assistance of Babcock clamps (FIGURE 3). 

After ensuring that the green rigid ring of the Alexis wound protector is contained and completely expanded within the peritoneal cavity, we cross our previously tagged sutures as we find this helps with preventing the GelPOINT Mini access platform from inadvertently shifting out of the peritoneal cavity during surgery. The GelSeal cap is then secured and pneumoperitoneum is established (FIGURE 4). 

Continue to: 4. Laparoendoscopic surgery...

Instruments used in our surgeries include a 10-mm rigid 30° 43-cm working length laparoscope; a 44-cm LigaSure device (Medtronic); a 5-mm, 37-cm laparoscopic cobra grasping forceps and fenestrated grasper (Karl Storz); and a 5-mm, 45-cm laparoscopic suction with hydrodissection tip (Stryker) (FIGURE 5). 

vNOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon the unique ability to survey the upper abdomen. The remainder of the surgery proceeds using basic laparoscopic single-site skills. 

During vNOTES, as with all single-site surgical procedures, understanding the optimal placement of crossed instruments is important for successful completion. For example, when securing the right uterine artery, the surgeon needs to push the cervix toward the patient's left and slightly into the peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic cobra grasper with his or her left hand while then securing the uterine pedicle using the LigaSure device with his or her right hand. This is then reversed when securing the left uterine artery, where the assistant surgeon pushes the cervix toward the patient's right while the surgeon secures the pedicle ("vaginal pull, laparoscopic push") (FIGURE 6). 

This again is reiterated in securing the ovarian pedicles, which are pushed into the peritoneal cavity while being secured with the LigaSure device. 

5. Specimen removal 

For large uteri or specimens that need morcellation, a 15-mm Endo Catch specimen retrieval bag (Medtronic) is introduced through the GelPOINT Mini system. The specimen is then placed in the bag and delivered to the vagina, where contained bag morcellation is performed in standard fashion (FIGURES 7 AND 8). We utilized the "big C" technique by first grasping the specimen with a penetrating clamp. The clamp is then held in our nondominant hand and a No. 10 blade scalpel is used to create a reverse c-incision, keeping one surface of the specimen intact. This is continued until the specimen can be completely delivered through the vagina. 

Specimens that do not require morcellation can be grasped laparoscopically, brought to the GelPOINT Mini port, which is quickly disassembled, and delivered. The GelSeal cap is then reassembled. 

6. Vaginal cuff closure 

The colpotomy or vaginal cuff is closed with barbed suture continuously, as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy cuff closure. Uterosacral ligament suspension should be performed for vaginal cuff support.  
 

Through the years, the surgical approach to hysterectomy has expanded from its early beginnings of being performed only through an abdominal or transvaginal route with traditional surgical clamps and suture. The late 1980s saw the advent of the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and from that point forward several additional hysterectomy methods evolved, including today’s robotic approaches.

Although clinical evidence and societal endorsements support vaginal hysterectomy as a superior high-value modality, it remains one of the least performed among all available routes.^1-3 In an analysis of inpatient hysterectomies published by Wright and colleagues in 2013, 16.7% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, a number that essentially has remained steady throughout the ensuing years.⁴

Attempts to improve the application of vaginal hysterectomy have been made.⁵ These include the development of various curriculum and simulation-based medical education programs on vaginal surgical skills training and acquisition in the hopes of improving utilization.⁶ An interesting recent development is the rethinking of vaginal hysterectomy by several surgeons globally who are applying facets of the various hysterectomy methods to a transvaginal approach known as vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES).^7,8 Unique to this thinking is the incorporation of conventional laparoscopic instrumentation.

Although I have not yet incorporated this approach in my surgical armamentarium at Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, I am intrigued by the possibility that this technique may serve as a rescue for vaginal hysterectomies that are at risk of conversion or of not being performed at all.⁹

At this time, vNOTES is not a standard of care and should be performed only by highly specialized surgeons. However, in the spirit of this Update on minimally invasive surgery and to keep our readers abreast of burgeoning techniques, I am delighted to bring you this overview by Dr. Xiaoming Guan, one of the pioneers of this surgical approach, and Dr. Tamisa Koythong and Dr. Juan Liu. I hope you find this recent development in hysterectomy of interest.

—Arnold P. Advincula, MD

Continue to: Development and evolution of NOTES...

Development and evolution of NOTES 

Over the past few decades, emphasis has shifted from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery because of its proven significant advantages in patient care, such as improved cosmesis, shorter hospital stay, shorter postoperative recovery, and decreased postoperative pain and blood loss.¹⁰  Advances in laparoendoscopic surgery and instrumentation, including robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and most recently natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), reflect ongoing innovative developments in the field of minimally invasive surgery. 

Here, we provide a brief literature review of the NOTES technique, focus on its application in gynecologic surgery, and describe how we perform NOTES at our institution. 

NOTES application in gynecology 

With NOTES, peritoneal access is gained through a natural orifice (such as the mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus) to perform endoscopic surgery, occasionally without requiring an abdominal incision. First described in 2004, transgastric peritoneoscopy was performed in a porcine model, and shortly thereafter the first transgastric appendectomy was performed in humans.^11,12 The technique has further been adopted in cholecystectomy, appendectomy, gastrectomy, and nephrectomy procedures.¹³ 

Given rapid interest in a possible paradigm shift in the field of minimally invasive surgery, the Natural Orifice Surgery Consortiumfor Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) was formed, and the group published an article on potential barriers to accepted practice and adoption of NOTES as a realistic alternative to traditional laparoscopic surgery.¹⁴ 

While transgastric and transanal access to the peritoneum were initially more popular, the risk of anastomotic leaks associated with incomplete closure and subsequent infection were thought to be prohibitively high.¹⁵ Transvaginal access was considered a safer and simpler alternative, allowing for complete closure without increased risk of infection, and this is now the route through which the majority of NOTES procedures are completed.^16,17 

The eventual application of NOTES in the field of gynecology seemed inevitable. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that transvaginal surgery is the most minimally invasive and preferred surgical route in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases.¹⁸ However, performing it can be challenging at times due to limited visualization and lack of the required skills for single-site surgery. NOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon to improve visualization through the use of laparoendoscopic instruments and to complete surgery through a transvaginal route. 

In 2012, Ahn and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility of the NOTES technique in gynecologic surgery after using it to successfully complete benign adnexal surgery in 10 patients.¹⁹ Vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) has since been further developed to include successful hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, and even lymphadenectomy in the treatment of early- stage endometrial carcinoma.^20-26 vNOTES also can be considered a rescue approach for traditional vaginal hysterectomy in instances in which it is necessary to evaluate adnexal pathology.⁹ Most recently, vNOTES hysterectomy has been reported with da Vinci Si or Xi robotic platforms.^27,28 

Continue to: Operative time, post-op stay shorter in NAOC-treated patients...

Few studies have compared outcomes with vNOTES to those with traditional laparoscopy. In 2016, Wang and colleagues compared surgical outcomes between NOTES-assisted ovarian cystectomy (NAOC) and laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (LOC) in a case-matched study that included 277 patients.²⁹ Although mean (SD) blood loss in patients who underwent LOC was significantly less compared with those who underwent NAOC (21.4 [14.7] mL vs 31.6 [24.1] mL; P = .028), absolute blood loss in both groups was deemed minimal. Additionally, mean (SD) operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in patients undergoing NAOC compared with those having LOC (38.23 [10.19] minutes vs 53.82 [18.61] minutes; P≤.001; and 1.38 [0.55] days vs 1.82 [0.52] days; P≤.001; respectively).²⁹ 

How vNOTES hysterectomy stacked up against TLH 

In 2018, Baekelandt and colleagues compared outcomes between vNOTES hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a noninferiority single-blinded trial of 70 women.⁸ Compared with TLH, vNOTES hysterectomy was associated with shorter operative time (41 vs 75 minutes; P<.001), shorter hospital stay (0.8 vs 1.3 days; P = .004), and lower postoperative analgesic requirement (8 vs 14 U; P = .006). Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate, intraoperative complications, or hospital readmissions within 6 weeks.⁸

Approach for performing vNOTES procedures 

At our institution, Baylor College of Medicine, the majority of gynecologic surgeries are performed via either transumbilical robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopy or vNOTES. Preoperative selection of appropriate candidates for vNOTES includes: 

• low suspicion for or prior diagnosis of endometriosis with obliteration of the posterior cul-de-sac 
• no surgical history suggestive of severe adhesive disease, and 
• adequate vaginal sidewall access and sufficient descent for instrumentation for entry into the peritoneal cavity. 

In general, a key concept in vNOTES is "vaginal pull, laparoscopic push," which means that the surgeon must pull the cervix while performing vaginal entry and then push the uterus back in the peritoneal cavity to increase surgical space during laparoscopic surgery. 

Continue to: Overview of vNOTES steps...

Below we break down a description of vNOTES in 6 sections. Our patients are always placed in dorsal lithotomy position with TrenGuard (D.A. Surgical) Trendelenburg restraint. We prep the abdomen in case we need to convert to transabdominal surgery via transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery or traditional laparoscopic surgery. 

1. Vaginal entry 

Accessing the peritoneal cavity through the vagina initially proceeds like a vaginal hysterectomy. We inject dilute vasopressin (20 U in 20 mL of normal saline) circumferentially in the cervix (for hysterectomy) or in the posterior cervix in the cervicovaginal junction (for adnexal surgery without hysterectomy) for vasoconstriction and hydrodissection. 

We then incise the vaginal mucosa circumferentially with electrosurgical cautery and follow with posterior colpotomy. We find that reapproximating the posterior peritoneum to the posterior vagina with either figure-of-8 stitches or a running stitch of polyglactin 910 suture (2-0 Vicryl) assists in port placement, bleeding at the peritoneal edge, and closure of the cuff or colpotomy at the end of the case. We tag this suture with a curved hemostat. 

Depending on whether a hysterectomy is being performed, anterior colpotomy is made. Again, the anterior peritoneum is then tagged to the anterior vaginal cuff in similar fashion, and this suture is tagged with a different instrument; we typically use a straight hemostat or Sarot clamp (FIGURE 1). 

2. Traditional vaginal hysterectomy 

After colpotomy, we prefer to perform progressive clamping of the broad ligament from the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments to the level of uterine artery as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy, if feasible. 

3. Single-site port placement 

The assembled GelPOINT Mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical) (FIGURE 2) is introduced through the vagina after the Alexis wound protector (included with the kit) is first placed through the colpotomy with assistance of Babcock clamps (FIGURE 3). 

After ensuring that the green rigid ring of the Alexis wound protector is contained and completely expanded within the peritoneal cavity, we cross our previously tagged sutures as we find this helps with preventing the GelPOINT Mini access platform from inadvertently shifting out of the peritoneal cavity during surgery. The GelSeal cap is then secured and pneumoperitoneum is established (FIGURE 4). 

Continue to: 4. Laparoendoscopic surgery...

Instruments used in our surgeries include a 10-mm rigid 30° 43-cm working length laparoscope; a 44-cm LigaSure device (Medtronic); a 5-mm, 37-cm laparoscopic cobra grasping forceps and fenestrated grasper (Karl Storz); and a 5-mm, 45-cm laparoscopic suction with hydrodissection tip (Stryker) (FIGURE 5). 

vNOTES allows a gynecologic surgeon the unique ability to survey the upper abdomen. The remainder of the surgery proceeds using basic laparoscopic single-site skills. 

During vNOTES, as with all single-site surgical procedures, understanding the optimal placement of crossed instruments is important for successful completion. For example, when securing the right uterine artery, the surgeon needs to push the cervix toward the patient's left and slightly into the peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic cobra grasper with his or her left hand while then securing the uterine pedicle using the LigaSure device with his or her right hand. This is then reversed when securing the left uterine artery, where the assistant surgeon pushes the cervix toward the patient's right while the surgeon secures the pedicle ("vaginal pull, laparoscopic push") (FIGURE 6). 

This again is reiterated in securing the ovarian pedicles, which are pushed into the peritoneal cavity while being secured with the LigaSure device. 

5. Specimen removal 

For large uteri or specimens that need morcellation, a 15-mm Endo Catch specimen retrieval bag (Medtronic) is introduced through the GelPOINT Mini system. The specimen is then placed in the bag and delivered to the vagina, where contained bag morcellation is performed in standard fashion (FIGURES 7 AND 8). We utilized the "big C" technique by first grasping the specimen with a penetrating clamp. The clamp is then held in our nondominant hand and a No. 10 blade scalpel is used to create a reverse c-incision, keeping one surface of the specimen intact. This is continued until the specimen can be completely delivered through the vagina. 

Specimens that do not require morcellation can be grasped laparoscopically, brought to the GelPOINT Mini port, which is quickly disassembled, and delivered. The GelSeal cap is then reassembled. 

6. Vaginal cuff closure 

The colpotomy or vaginal cuff is closed with barbed suture continuously, as in traditional vaginal hysterectomy cuff closure. Uterosacral ligament suspension should be performed for vaginal cuff support.  
 

Endometriosis, defined by the ectopic growth of functioning endometrial glands and stroma,^1,2 usually affects the peritoneal cavity. However, endometriosis has been identified in the pneumothorax, brain, and within the extraperitoneum, such as the abdominal wall.^1-3 Incidence of abdominal wall endometriosis can be up to 12%.^3-5 If patients report symptoms, they can include abdominal pain, a palpable mass, pelvic pain consistent with endometriosis, and bleeding from involvement of the overlying skin. Abdominal wall endometriosis can be surgically resected, with complete resolution and a low rate of recurrence.

In the following video, we review the diagnosis of abdominal wall endometriosis, including our imaging of choice, and treatment options. In addition, we illustrate a surgical technique for the excision of abdominal wall endometriosis in a 38-year-old patient with symptomatic disease. We conclude with a review of key surgical steps.

We hope that you find this video useful to your clinical practice.
>> Dr. Arnold P. Advincula, and colleagues

Vidyard Video

Endometriosis, defined by the ectopic growth of functioning endometrial glands and stroma,^1,2 usually affects the peritoneal cavity. However, endometriosis has been identified in the pneumothorax, brain, and within the extraperitoneum, such as the abdominal wall.^1-3 Incidence of abdominal wall endometriosis can be up to 12%.^3-5 If patients report symptoms, they can include abdominal pain, a palpable mass, pelvic pain consistent with endometriosis, and bleeding from involvement of the overlying skin. Abdominal wall endometriosis can be surgically resected, with complete resolution and a low rate of recurrence.

In the following video, we review the diagnosis of abdominal wall endometriosis, including our imaging of choice, and treatment options. In addition, we illustrate a surgical technique for the excision of abdominal wall endometriosis in a 38-year-old patient with symptomatic disease. We conclude with a review of key surgical steps.

We hope that you find this video useful to your clinical practice.
>> Dr. Arnold P. Advincula, and colleagues

Vidyard Video

Endometriosis, defined by the ectopic growth of functioning endometrial glands and stroma,^1,2 usually affects the peritoneal cavity. However, endometriosis has been identified in the pneumothorax, brain, and within the extraperitoneum, such as the abdominal wall.^1-3 Incidence of abdominal wall endometriosis can be up to 12%.^3-5 If patients report symptoms, they can include abdominal pain, a palpable mass, pelvic pain consistent with endometriosis, and bleeding from involvement of the overlying skin. Abdominal wall endometriosis can be surgically resected, with complete resolution and a low rate of recurrence.

In the following video, we review the diagnosis of abdominal wall endometriosis, including our imaging of choice, and treatment options. In addition, we illustrate a surgical technique for the excision of abdominal wall endometriosis in a 38-year-old patient with symptomatic disease. We conclude with a review of key surgical steps.

We hope that you find this video useful to your clinical practice.
>> Dr. Arnold P. Advincula, and colleagues

Vidyard Video

A minilaparotomy is loosely defined as a laparotomy measuring between 4 cm and 6 cm. For the appropriate surgical candidate, a minilaparotomy is a useful alternative to laparotomy or laparoscopy, especially for large pathology.¹ Benefits of minilaparotomy include improved pain management and postoperative recovery, as well as improved cosmetic outcome, with comparable blood loss and operative time.^2,3

Vidyard Video

 In this video, we illustrate the key surgical steps of a minilaparotomy for the removal of large fibroids. These steps include:

1. strategic vertical skin incision
2. use of a self-retaining retractor
3. infiltrate myometrium with dilute vasopressin
4. strategic hysterotomy
5. use of tenaculum for upward traction
6. 10# blade scalpels for the “lemon wedge” coring technique
7. layered closure.

Minilaparotomy myomectomy can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative to a traditional “full laparotomy” for women with large fibroids.

We hope that you find this video beneficial to your clinical practice.

>> Arnold P. Advincula, MD
 

WATCH FOR THIS VIDEO COMING SOON:

---

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minilaparotomy assistance for the massively enlarged adnexal mass

A minilaparotomy is loosely defined as a laparotomy measuring between 4 cm and 6 cm. For the appropriate surgical candidate, a minilaparotomy is a useful alternative to laparotomy or laparoscopy, especially for large pathology.¹ Benefits of minilaparotomy include improved pain management and postoperative recovery, as well as improved cosmetic outcome, with comparable blood loss and operative time.^2,3

Vidyard Video

 In this video, we illustrate the key surgical steps of a minilaparotomy for the removal of large fibroids. These steps include:

1. strategic vertical skin incision
2. use of a self-retaining retractor
3. infiltrate myometrium with dilute vasopressin
4. strategic hysterotomy
5. use of tenaculum for upward traction
6. 10# blade scalpels for the “lemon wedge” coring technique
7. layered closure.

Minilaparotomy myomectomy can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative to a traditional “full laparotomy” for women with large fibroids.

We hope that you find this video beneficial to your clinical practice.

>> Arnold P. Advincula, MD
 

WATCH FOR THIS VIDEO COMING SOON:

---

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minilaparotomy assistance for the massively enlarged adnexal mass

A minilaparotomy is loosely defined as a laparotomy measuring between 4 cm and 6 cm. For the appropriate surgical candidate, a minilaparotomy is a useful alternative to laparotomy or laparoscopy, especially for large pathology.¹ Benefits of minilaparotomy include improved pain management and postoperative recovery, as well as improved cosmetic outcome, with comparable blood loss and operative time.^2,3

Vidyard Video

 In this video, we illustrate the key surgical steps of a minilaparotomy for the removal of large fibroids. These steps include:

1. strategic vertical skin incision
2. use of a self-retaining retractor
3. infiltrate myometrium with dilute vasopressin
4. strategic hysterotomy
5. use of tenaculum for upward traction
6. 10# blade scalpels for the “lemon wedge” coring technique
7. layered closure.

Minilaparotomy myomectomy can be an excellent minimally invasive alternative to a traditional “full laparotomy” for women with large fibroids.

We hope that you find this video beneficial to your clinical practice.

>> Arnold P. Advincula, MD
 

WATCH FOR THIS VIDEO COMING SOON:

---

Laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minilaparotomy assistance for the massively enlarged adnexal mass

Uterine fibroids are the most common solid pelvic tumor in women and a leading indication for hysterectomy in the United States.¹ As a result, they represent significant morbidity for many women and are a major public health problem. By age 50, 70% of white women and 80% of black women have fibroids.²

Although fibroids are sometimes asymptomatic, the symptoms most commonly reported are abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) with resultant anemia and bulk/pressure symptoms. Uterine fibroids also are associated with reproductive dysfunction, such as recurrent pregnancy loss, and even infertility.³

The clinical diagnosis of uterine fibroids is made based on a combination of physical examination and imaging studies, including pelvic ultrasonography, saline infusion sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). When medical management, such as combination oral contraceptive pills, fails in patients with AUB and/or bulk predominant symptoms or patients present with compromised fertility, the only option for conservative surgical management is a myomectomy.⁴

The route of myomectomy—hysteroscopy, laparotomy, conventional laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), or robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM)—depends on the size, number, location, and consistency of the uterine fibroids and, to a certain extent, the indication for the myomectomy. In some cases, multiple routes must be used to achieve optimal results, and sometimes these procedures have to be staged. In this literature review and technical summary, we focus on conventional LM and RALM approaches.

Literature review: In the right hands, LM and RALM have clear benefits

In the past, laparotomy was the surgical route of choice for fibroid removal. This surgery was associated with a long hospital stay, a high rate of blood transfusions, postoperative pain, and a lengthy recovery period. As minimally invasive surgery gained popularity, conventional LM became more commonly performed and was accepted by many as the gold standard approach for myomectomy.⁵

LM has considerable advantages over laparotomy

Compared with the traditional, more invasive route, the conventional LM approach has many benefits. These include less blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, shorter recovery time, shorter hospitalization stay, and decreased perioperative complications.⁶ LM should be considered the first-line approach unless the size of an intramural myoma exceeds 10 to 12 cm or multiple myomas (consensus, approximately 4 or more) are present and necessitate several incisions according to their varying locations within the uterus.^7,8 While this is a recommendation, reports have been published on the successful laparoscopic approach to myomas larger than 20 cm, demonstrating that a skilled, experienced surgeon can perform this procedure safely.^9-11

Many studies comparing LM with the abdominal approach showed that LM is associated with decreased blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery.^12-14 Unfortunately, myomectomy via conventional laparoscopy can be technically challenging, thereby limiting patient accessibility to this approach. Major challenges with conventional LM include enucleation of the fibroid along the correct plane and a multilayered hysterotomy closure.¹⁵ The obvious concern with the latter is the potential risk for uterine rupture when improperly performed as a result of deficient suturing skills. Accordingly, several cases of uterine rupture in the second and third trimester of pregnancy after LM led to recommendations for stricter selection criteria, which excluded patients with fibroids larger than 5 cm, multiple fibroids, and deep intramural fibroids.¹⁶

Continue to: The RALM approach

RALM was developed as a surgical alternative and to help overcome conventional laparoscopy challenges, such as suturing, as well as to offer minimally invasive options to a broader patient pool. In 2004, Advincula and colleagues reported the first case series of 35 women who underwent RALM.¹⁷ Since that report was published, multiple retrospective studies have confirmed RALM’s safety, feasibility, and efficacy.

How RALM stacks up against laparotomy. Compared with traditional abdominal myomectomy (AM), RALM has been associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, quicker recovery time, fewer complications, and higher costs.¹⁸ In a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs of RALM versus AM, Nash and colleagues found that RALM patients required less intravenous narcotics, had shorter hospital stays, and had equivalent clinical outcomes compared with AM-treated patients.¹⁹ In addition, the authors observed a correlation between increased specimen size and decreased operative efficiency with RALM. Retrospective cohort studies by Mansour and colleagues and Sangha and colleagues echoed similar conclusions.^20,21

RALM versus conventional LM. The comparisons between conventional LM and RALM are not as clear-cut, and although evidence strongly suggests a role for RALM, more comparative studies are needed.

In 2013, Pundir and colleagues completed a meta-analysis and systematic review comparing RALM with AM and LM.²² They reviewed 10 observational studies; 7 compared RALM with AM, 4 compared RALM with LM, and 1 study compared RALM with AM and LM (this was included in both groups). In the comparison between RALM and AM, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower with RALM, risk of complication was similar, and operating time and costs were significantly higher. The cost findings were not too dissimilar to conclusions drawn by Advincula and colleagues in an earlier study.¹⁸

Further, when Pundir and colleagues compared RALM with LM, blood transfusion risk and costs were higher with RALM, but no significant differences were noted in estimated blood loss, operating time, length of hospital stay, and complications.²² In this analysis, RALM showed significant short-term benefits when compared with AM but no benefit when compared with LM.

Continue to: Benefits after RALM over time

Long-term benefits from RALM, such as symptom recurrence rates and fertility outcomes, have been demonstrated. In 2015, Pitter and colleagues published the first paper on symptom recurrence after RALM.²³ In this retrospective survey, 426 women underwent RALM for symptom relief or infertility across 3 practice sites; 62.9% reported being symptom free after 3 years. In addition, 80% of symptom-free women who had undergone RALM to improve fertility outcomes conceived after 3 years. The mean (SD) time to pregnancy was 7.9 (9.4) months. Overall, pregnancy rates improved and symptom recurrence increased with the interval of time since surgery.²³

In another study, Pitter and colleagues reported on pregnancy outcomes in greater detail.²⁴ They evaluated 872 women who underwent RALM between October 2005 and November 2010 at 3 centers. Of these women, 107 conceived, resulting in 127 pregnancies and 92 deliveries through 2011. The means (SD) for age at myomectomy, number of myomas removed, and myoma size were 34.8 (4.5) years, 3.9 (3.2), and 7.5 (3.0) cm (weight, 191.7 [144.8] g), respectively. Overall, the pregnancy outcomes in this study were comparable to those reported in the literature for conventional LM.

Cela and colleagues reported similar outcomes based on their review of 48 patients who underwent RALM between 2007 and 2011.²⁵ Seven women became pregnant (8 pregnancies). There were no spontaneous abortions or uterine ruptures. Following suit, Kang and colleagues reported outcomes in 100 women who underwent RALM for deep intramural fibroids (FIGO type 2 to 5).26 The average (SD) number of fibroids was 3.8 (3.5) with a mean (SD) size of 7.5 (2.1) cm. All patients recovered without major complications, and 75% of those pursuing pregnancy conceived.

The importance of LM and RALM 

After this brief review of the data on conventional LM and RALM, it is fair to conclude that both surgical options are a game changer for the minimally invasive management of uterine fibroids. Despite strong evidence that suggests laparoscopy is superior to laparotomy for myomectomy, the technical demands required for performing conventional LM may explain why it is underutilized and why the advantages of robotic surgery—with its 3-dimensional imaging and articulated instruments—make this approach an attractive alternative.

The myomectomy technique we prefer at our institution

At our medical center, we approach the majority of abdominal myomectomies via conventional LM or RALM. We carefully select candidates with the goal of ensuring a successful procedure and minimizing the risk of conversion. When selecting candidates, we consider these factors:

• size, number, location, and consistency of the fibroids
• patient’s body habitus, and
• relative size of the uterus to the length of the patient’s torso.

Additionally, any concerns raised during the preoperative workup regarding a suspected risk of occult leiomyosarcoma preclude a minimally invasive approach. Otherwise, deciding between 
conventional LM and RALM is based on surgeon preference.

Watch how it’s done

---

View these surgical techniques on the multimedia channel

---

Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy

Arnold P. Advincula, MD, Victoria M. Fratto, MD, and Caroline Key 
A systematic approach to surgery in a 39-year-old woman with heavy menstrual bleeding who desires future fertility. Features include robot-specific techniques that facilitate fibroid enucleation and hysterotomy repair and demonstration of the ExCITE technique for tissue extraction.

 

Laparoscopic myomectomy technique

William H. Parker, MD
A step-by-step demonstration of the laparoscopic myomectomy technique used to resect a 7-cm posterior fibroid in a 44-year-old woman.

 

 

Laparoscopic myomectomy with enclosed transvaginal tissue extraction

Ceana Nezhat, MD, and Erica Dun, MD, MPH
A surgical case of a 41-yearold woman with radiating lower abdominal pain and menorrhagia who desired removal of symptomatic myomas. Preoperative transvaginal ultrasonography revealed a 4-cm posterior pedunculated myoma and a 5-cm fundal intramural myoma.

Continue to: Preoperative MRI guides surgical approach

An MRI scan is a critical component of the patient’s preoperative evaluation. It helps to define the uterine architecture as it relates to fibroids and to rule out the presence of adenomyosis. In general, we do not offer RALM to patients who have more than 15 myomas, a single myoma that is larger than 12 to 15 cm, or when the uterus is more than 2 fingerbreadths above the umbilicus (unless the patient’s torso allows for an adequate insufflated workspace). We also try to avoid preoperative treatment with a gonadotropin–releasing hormone agonist to minimize softening of the myoma and blurring of the dissection planes.

Steps in the procedure

Once the patient is intubated, properly positioned, prepped, and draped, we turn our attention toward peritoneal entry. Factors that influence entry include the patient’s surgical history, radiologic imaging, physical examination (particularly the exam under anesthesia), and surgeon preference for optimizing access. Quite often we use a left upper quadrant entry via Palmer’s point, with subsequent port placement individualized to the patient’s pathology and abdominal topography. Three or more incisions are required to accommodate the camera and at least 2 to 3 operative instruments. Port sizes vary from 5 to 12 mm depending on the desired equipment and surgeon preference (conventional LM versus RALM [FIGURE 1]). 

A uterine manipulator is a crucial tool used when performing LM.²⁷ This instrument enables elevation of the uterus to allow for adequate visualization of the targeted myomas, traction-countertraction during enucleation, and strategic positioning during hysterotomy repair. We also use a bedside-mounted electric uterine positioning system that provides static orientation of the uterus by interfacing with the uterine manipulator, thereby obviating the need for a bedside assistant to provide that service (FIGURE 2).

Once we observe adequate myometrial blanching from the vasopressin administration, we make a strategic hysterotomy incision (preferably transverse) to allow the surgeon to more ergonomically close the defect. We then identify the pseudocapsule so that the surgeon can circumferentially enucleate the myoma and dissect it from its fibrous attachments to the surrounding myometrium.

Continue to: The energy devices used to perform the hysterotomy...

A reliable tenaculum is critical to the success of any enucleation, whether the approach is conventional LM or RALM, in order to provide adequate traction on the myoma (FIGURE 4). We try to minimize the number of hysterotomy incisions not only to reduce further blood loss, as the majority of bleeding ensues from the surrounding myometrium, but also to minimize compromise of myometrial integrity. Additionally, we take care to avoid entry into the endometrial cavity.

As we enucleate a myoma, we place it in either the anterior or posterior cul de sac. Most important, if we enucleate multiple myomas, we keep careful track of their number. We string the myomas together with suture until we extract them to ensure this. 

While hysterotomy closure can be performed with either barbed or nonbarbed sutures in a single- or a multi-layered fashion, we prefer to use a barbed suture.^29,30 Just as enucleation requires appropriate instruments, suturing requires proper needle drivers (FIGURE 5). We advise judicious use of energy to minimize thermal effects and maintain the viability of the surrounding myometrium. Once we have sutured the myometrium closed, we place an adhesion barrier. 

Although discussion of tissue extraction is beyond the scope of this Update, any surgeon embarking on either conventional LM or RALM must have a strategy for safe contained tissue extraction given the recent concerns over uncontained power morcellation.^31,32

Surgical skill and careful patient selection are key to optimal outcomes

Patients seeking conservative surgical management of their uterine fibroids should be considered candidates for either a conventional LM or RALM. Both the scientific literature and technologic advances make these approaches viable options, especially when the surgeon’s skill is appropriate and the patient’s candidacy is adequately vetted. A well thought out surgical strategy from start to finish will ensure the chances for successful completion and optimized outcomes. 

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Uterine fibroids are the most common solid pelvic tumor in women and a leading indication for hysterectomy in the United States.¹ As a result, they represent significant morbidity for many women and are a major public health problem. By age 50, 70% of white women and 80% of black women have fibroids.²

Although fibroids are sometimes asymptomatic, the symptoms most commonly reported are abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) with resultant anemia and bulk/pressure symptoms. Uterine fibroids also are associated with reproductive dysfunction, such as recurrent pregnancy loss, and even infertility.³

The clinical diagnosis of uterine fibroids is made based on a combination of physical examination and imaging studies, including pelvic ultrasonography, saline infusion sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). When medical management, such as combination oral contraceptive pills, fails in patients with AUB and/or bulk predominant symptoms or patients present with compromised fertility, the only option for conservative surgical management is a myomectomy.⁴

The route of myomectomy—hysteroscopy, laparotomy, conventional laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), or robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM)—depends on the size, number, location, and consistency of the uterine fibroids and, to a certain extent, the indication for the myomectomy. In some cases, multiple routes must be used to achieve optimal results, and sometimes these procedures have to be staged. In this literature review and technical summary, we focus on conventional LM and RALM approaches.

Literature review: In the right hands, LM and RALM have clear benefits

In the past, laparotomy was the surgical route of choice for fibroid removal. This surgery was associated with a long hospital stay, a high rate of blood transfusions, postoperative pain, and a lengthy recovery period. As minimally invasive surgery gained popularity, conventional LM became more commonly performed and was accepted by many as the gold standard approach for myomectomy.⁵

LM has considerable advantages over laparotomy

Compared with the traditional, more invasive route, the conventional LM approach has many benefits. These include less blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, shorter recovery time, shorter hospitalization stay, and decreased perioperative complications.⁶ LM should be considered the first-line approach unless the size of an intramural myoma exceeds 10 to 12 cm or multiple myomas (consensus, approximately 4 or more) are present and necessitate several incisions according to their varying locations within the uterus.^7,8 While this is a recommendation, reports have been published on the successful laparoscopic approach to myomas larger than 20 cm, demonstrating that a skilled, experienced surgeon can perform this procedure safely.^9-11

Many studies comparing LM with the abdominal approach showed that LM is associated with decreased blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery.^12-14 Unfortunately, myomectomy via conventional laparoscopy can be technically challenging, thereby limiting patient accessibility to this approach. Major challenges with conventional LM include enucleation of the fibroid along the correct plane and a multilayered hysterotomy closure.¹⁵ The obvious concern with the latter is the potential risk for uterine rupture when improperly performed as a result of deficient suturing skills. Accordingly, several cases of uterine rupture in the second and third trimester of pregnancy after LM led to recommendations for stricter selection criteria, which excluded patients with fibroids larger than 5 cm, multiple fibroids, and deep intramural fibroids.¹⁶

Continue to: The RALM approach

RALM was developed as a surgical alternative and to help overcome conventional laparoscopy challenges, such as suturing, as well as to offer minimally invasive options to a broader patient pool. In 2004, Advincula and colleagues reported the first case series of 35 women who underwent RALM.¹⁷ Since that report was published, multiple retrospective studies have confirmed RALM’s safety, feasibility, and efficacy.

How RALM stacks up against laparotomy. Compared with traditional abdominal myomectomy (AM), RALM has been associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, quicker recovery time, fewer complications, and higher costs.¹⁸ In a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs of RALM versus AM, Nash and colleagues found that RALM patients required less intravenous narcotics, had shorter hospital stays, and had equivalent clinical outcomes compared with AM-treated patients.¹⁹ In addition, the authors observed a correlation between increased specimen size and decreased operative efficiency with RALM. Retrospective cohort studies by Mansour and colleagues and Sangha and colleagues echoed similar conclusions.^20,21

RALM versus conventional LM. The comparisons between conventional LM and RALM are not as clear-cut, and although evidence strongly suggests a role for RALM, more comparative studies are needed.

In 2013, Pundir and colleagues completed a meta-analysis and systematic review comparing RALM with AM and LM.²² They reviewed 10 observational studies; 7 compared RALM with AM, 4 compared RALM with LM, and 1 study compared RALM with AM and LM (this was included in both groups). In the comparison between RALM and AM, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower with RALM, risk of complication was similar, and operating time and costs were significantly higher. The cost findings were not too dissimilar to conclusions drawn by Advincula and colleagues in an earlier study.¹⁸

Further, when Pundir and colleagues compared RALM with LM, blood transfusion risk and costs were higher with RALM, but no significant differences were noted in estimated blood loss, operating time, length of hospital stay, and complications.²² In this analysis, RALM showed significant short-term benefits when compared with AM but no benefit when compared with LM.

Continue to: Benefits after RALM over time

Long-term benefits from RALM, such as symptom recurrence rates and fertility outcomes, have been demonstrated. In 2015, Pitter and colleagues published the first paper on symptom recurrence after RALM.²³ In this retrospective survey, 426 women underwent RALM for symptom relief or infertility across 3 practice sites; 62.9% reported being symptom free after 3 years. In addition, 80% of symptom-free women who had undergone RALM to improve fertility outcomes conceived after 3 years. The mean (SD) time to pregnancy was 7.9 (9.4) months. Overall, pregnancy rates improved and symptom recurrence increased with the interval of time since surgery.²³

In another study, Pitter and colleagues reported on pregnancy outcomes in greater detail.²⁴ They evaluated 872 women who underwent RALM between October 2005 and November 2010 at 3 centers. Of these women, 107 conceived, resulting in 127 pregnancies and 92 deliveries through 2011. The means (SD) for age at myomectomy, number of myomas removed, and myoma size were 34.8 (4.5) years, 3.9 (3.2), and 7.5 (3.0) cm (weight, 191.7 [144.8] g), respectively. Overall, the pregnancy outcomes in this study were comparable to those reported in the literature for conventional LM.

Cela and colleagues reported similar outcomes based on their review of 48 patients who underwent RALM between 2007 and 2011.²⁵ Seven women became pregnant (8 pregnancies). There were no spontaneous abortions or uterine ruptures. Following suit, Kang and colleagues reported outcomes in 100 women who underwent RALM for deep intramural fibroids (FIGO type 2 to 5).26 The average (SD) number of fibroids was 3.8 (3.5) with a mean (SD) size of 7.5 (2.1) cm. All patients recovered without major complications, and 75% of those pursuing pregnancy conceived.

The importance of LM and RALM 

After this brief review of the data on conventional LM and RALM, it is fair to conclude that both surgical options are a game changer for the minimally invasive management of uterine fibroids. Despite strong evidence that suggests laparoscopy is superior to laparotomy for myomectomy, the technical demands required for performing conventional LM may explain why it is underutilized and why the advantages of robotic surgery—with its 3-dimensional imaging and articulated instruments—make this approach an attractive alternative.

The myomectomy technique we prefer at our institution

At our medical center, we approach the majority of abdominal myomectomies via conventional LM or RALM. We carefully select candidates with the goal of ensuring a successful procedure and minimizing the risk of conversion. When selecting candidates, we consider these factors:

• size, number, location, and consistency of the fibroids
• patient’s body habitus, and
• relative size of the uterus to the length of the patient’s torso.

Additionally, any concerns raised during the preoperative workup regarding a suspected risk of occult leiomyosarcoma preclude a minimally invasive approach. Otherwise, deciding between 
conventional LM and RALM is based on surgeon preference.

Watch how it’s done

---

View these surgical techniques on the multimedia channel

---

Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy

Arnold P. Advincula, MD, Victoria M. Fratto, MD, and Caroline Key 
A systematic approach to surgery in a 39-year-old woman with heavy menstrual bleeding who desires future fertility. Features include robot-specific techniques that facilitate fibroid enucleation and hysterotomy repair and demonstration of the ExCITE technique for tissue extraction.

 

Laparoscopic myomectomy technique

William H. Parker, MD
A step-by-step demonstration of the laparoscopic myomectomy technique used to resect a 7-cm posterior fibroid in a 44-year-old woman.

 

 

Laparoscopic myomectomy with enclosed transvaginal tissue extraction

Ceana Nezhat, MD, and Erica Dun, MD, MPH
A surgical case of a 41-yearold woman with radiating lower abdominal pain and menorrhagia who desired removal of symptomatic myomas. Preoperative transvaginal ultrasonography revealed a 4-cm posterior pedunculated myoma and a 5-cm fundal intramural myoma.

Continue to: Preoperative MRI guides surgical approach

An MRI scan is a critical component of the patient’s preoperative evaluation. It helps to define the uterine architecture as it relates to fibroids and to rule out the presence of adenomyosis. In general, we do not offer RALM to patients who have more than 15 myomas, a single myoma that is larger than 12 to 15 cm, or when the uterus is more than 2 fingerbreadths above the umbilicus (unless the patient’s torso allows for an adequate insufflated workspace). We also try to avoid preoperative treatment with a gonadotropin–releasing hormone agonist to minimize softening of the myoma and blurring of the dissection planes.

Steps in the procedure

Once the patient is intubated, properly positioned, prepped, and draped, we turn our attention toward peritoneal entry. Factors that influence entry include the patient’s surgical history, radiologic imaging, physical examination (particularly the exam under anesthesia), and surgeon preference for optimizing access. Quite often we use a left upper quadrant entry via Palmer’s point, with subsequent port placement individualized to the patient’s pathology and abdominal topography. Three or more incisions are required to accommodate the camera and at least 2 to 3 operative instruments. Port sizes vary from 5 to 12 mm depending on the desired equipment and surgeon preference (conventional LM versus RALM [FIGURE 1]). 

A uterine manipulator is a crucial tool used when performing LM.²⁷ This instrument enables elevation of the uterus to allow for adequate visualization of the targeted myomas, traction-countertraction during enucleation, and strategic positioning during hysterotomy repair. We also use a bedside-mounted electric uterine positioning system that provides static orientation of the uterus by interfacing with the uterine manipulator, thereby obviating the need for a bedside assistant to provide that service (FIGURE 2).

Once we observe adequate myometrial blanching from the vasopressin administration, we make a strategic hysterotomy incision (preferably transverse) to allow the surgeon to more ergonomically close the defect. We then identify the pseudocapsule so that the surgeon can circumferentially enucleate the myoma and dissect it from its fibrous attachments to the surrounding myometrium.

Continue to: The energy devices used to perform the hysterotomy...

A reliable tenaculum is critical to the success of any enucleation, whether the approach is conventional LM or RALM, in order to provide adequate traction on the myoma (FIGURE 4). We try to minimize the number of hysterotomy incisions not only to reduce further blood loss, as the majority of bleeding ensues from the surrounding myometrium, but also to minimize compromise of myometrial integrity. Additionally, we take care to avoid entry into the endometrial cavity.

As we enucleate a myoma, we place it in either the anterior or posterior cul de sac. Most important, if we enucleate multiple myomas, we keep careful track of their number. We string the myomas together with suture until we extract them to ensure this. 

While hysterotomy closure can be performed with either barbed or nonbarbed sutures in a single- or a multi-layered fashion, we prefer to use a barbed suture.^29,30 Just as enucleation requires appropriate instruments, suturing requires proper needle drivers (FIGURE 5). We advise judicious use of energy to minimize thermal effects and maintain the viability of the surrounding myometrium. Once we have sutured the myometrium closed, we place an adhesion barrier. 

Although discussion of tissue extraction is beyond the scope of this Update, any surgeon embarking on either conventional LM or RALM must have a strategy for safe contained tissue extraction given the recent concerns over uncontained power morcellation.^31,32

Surgical skill and careful patient selection are key to optimal outcomes

Patients seeking conservative surgical management of their uterine fibroids should be considered candidates for either a conventional LM or RALM. Both the scientific literature and technologic advances make these approaches viable options, especially when the surgeon’s skill is appropriate and the patient’s candidacy is adequately vetted. A well thought out surgical strategy from start to finish will ensure the chances for successful completion and optimized outcomes. 

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Uterine fibroids are the most common solid pelvic tumor in women and a leading indication for hysterectomy in the United States.¹ As a result, they represent significant morbidity for many women and are a major public health problem. By age 50, 70% of white women and 80% of black women have fibroids.²

Although fibroids are sometimes asymptomatic, the symptoms most commonly reported are abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) with resultant anemia and bulk/pressure symptoms. Uterine fibroids also are associated with reproductive dysfunction, such as recurrent pregnancy loss, and even infertility.³

The clinical diagnosis of uterine fibroids is made based on a combination of physical examination and imaging studies, including pelvic ultrasonography, saline infusion sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). When medical management, such as combination oral contraceptive pills, fails in patients with AUB and/or bulk predominant symptoms or patients present with compromised fertility, the only option for conservative surgical management is a myomectomy.⁴

The route of myomectomy—hysteroscopy, laparotomy, conventional laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), or robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM)—depends on the size, number, location, and consistency of the uterine fibroids and, to a certain extent, the indication for the myomectomy. In some cases, multiple routes must be used to achieve optimal results, and sometimes these procedures have to be staged. In this literature review and technical summary, we focus on conventional LM and RALM approaches.

Literature review: In the right hands, LM and RALM have clear benefits

In the past, laparotomy was the surgical route of choice for fibroid removal. This surgery was associated with a long hospital stay, a high rate of blood transfusions, postoperative pain, and a lengthy recovery period. As minimally invasive surgery gained popularity, conventional LM became more commonly performed and was accepted by many as the gold standard approach for myomectomy.⁵

LM has considerable advantages over laparotomy

Compared with the traditional, more invasive route, the conventional LM approach has many benefits. These include less blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, shorter recovery time, shorter hospitalization stay, and decreased perioperative complications.⁶ LM should be considered the first-line approach unless the size of an intramural myoma exceeds 10 to 12 cm or multiple myomas (consensus, approximately 4 or more) are present and necessitate several incisions according to their varying locations within the uterus.^7,8 While this is a recommendation, reports have been published on the successful laparoscopic approach to myomas larger than 20 cm, demonstrating that a skilled, experienced surgeon can perform this procedure safely.^9-11

Many studies comparing LM with the abdominal approach showed that LM is associated with decreased blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery.^12-14 Unfortunately, myomectomy via conventional laparoscopy can be technically challenging, thereby limiting patient accessibility to this approach. Major challenges with conventional LM include enucleation of the fibroid along the correct plane and a multilayered hysterotomy closure.¹⁵ The obvious concern with the latter is the potential risk for uterine rupture when improperly performed as a result of deficient suturing skills. Accordingly, several cases of uterine rupture in the second and third trimester of pregnancy after LM led to recommendations for stricter selection criteria, which excluded patients with fibroids larger than 5 cm, multiple fibroids, and deep intramural fibroids.¹⁶

Continue to: The RALM approach

RALM was developed as a surgical alternative and to help overcome conventional laparoscopy challenges, such as suturing, as well as to offer minimally invasive options to a broader patient pool. In 2004, Advincula and colleagues reported the first case series of 35 women who underwent RALM.¹⁷ Since that report was published, multiple retrospective studies have confirmed RALM’s safety, feasibility, and efficacy.

How RALM stacks up against laparotomy. Compared with traditional abdominal myomectomy (AM), RALM has been associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, quicker recovery time, fewer complications, and higher costs.¹⁸ In a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs of RALM versus AM, Nash and colleagues found that RALM patients required less intravenous narcotics, had shorter hospital stays, and had equivalent clinical outcomes compared with AM-treated patients.¹⁹ In addition, the authors observed a correlation between increased specimen size and decreased operative efficiency with RALM. Retrospective cohort studies by Mansour and colleagues and Sangha and colleagues echoed similar conclusions.^20,21

RALM versus conventional LM. The comparisons between conventional LM and RALM are not as clear-cut, and although evidence strongly suggests a role for RALM, more comparative studies are needed.

In 2013, Pundir and colleagues completed a meta-analysis and systematic review comparing RALM with AM and LM.²² They reviewed 10 observational studies; 7 compared RALM with AM, 4 compared RALM with LM, and 1 study compared RALM with AM and LM (this was included in both groups). In the comparison between RALM and AM, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower with RALM, risk of complication was similar, and operating time and costs were significantly higher. The cost findings were not too dissimilar to conclusions drawn by Advincula and colleagues in an earlier study.¹⁸

Further, when Pundir and colleagues compared RALM with LM, blood transfusion risk and costs were higher with RALM, but no significant differences were noted in estimated blood loss, operating time, length of hospital stay, and complications.²² In this analysis, RALM showed significant short-term benefits when compared with AM but no benefit when compared with LM.

Continue to: Benefits after RALM over time

Long-term benefits from RALM, such as symptom recurrence rates and fertility outcomes, have been demonstrated. In 2015, Pitter and colleagues published the first paper on symptom recurrence after RALM.²³ In this retrospective survey, 426 women underwent RALM for symptom relief or infertility across 3 practice sites; 62.9% reported being symptom free after 3 years. In addition, 80% of symptom-free women who had undergone RALM to improve fertility outcomes conceived after 3 years. The mean (SD) time to pregnancy was 7.9 (9.4) months. Overall, pregnancy rates improved and symptom recurrence increased with the interval of time since surgery.²³

In another study, Pitter and colleagues reported on pregnancy outcomes in greater detail.²⁴ They evaluated 872 women who underwent RALM between October 2005 and November 2010 at 3 centers. Of these women, 107 conceived, resulting in 127 pregnancies and 92 deliveries through 2011. The means (SD) for age at myomectomy, number of myomas removed, and myoma size were 34.8 (4.5) years, 3.9 (3.2), and 7.5 (3.0) cm (weight, 191.7 [144.8] g), respectively. Overall, the pregnancy outcomes in this study were comparable to those reported in the literature for conventional LM.

Cela and colleagues reported similar outcomes based on their review of 48 patients who underwent RALM between 2007 and 2011.²⁵ Seven women became pregnant (8 pregnancies). There were no spontaneous abortions or uterine ruptures. Following suit, Kang and colleagues reported outcomes in 100 women who underwent RALM for deep intramural fibroids (FIGO type 2 to 5).26 The average (SD) number of fibroids was 3.8 (3.5) with a mean (SD) size of 7.5 (2.1) cm. All patients recovered without major complications, and 75% of those pursuing pregnancy conceived.

The importance of LM and RALM 

After this brief review of the data on conventional LM and RALM, it is fair to conclude that both surgical options are a game changer for the minimally invasive management of uterine fibroids. Despite strong evidence that suggests laparoscopy is superior to laparotomy for myomectomy, the technical demands required for performing conventional LM may explain why it is underutilized and why the advantages of robotic surgery—with its 3-dimensional imaging and articulated instruments—make this approach an attractive alternative.

The myomectomy technique we prefer at our institution

At our medical center, we approach the majority of abdominal myomectomies via conventional LM or RALM. We carefully select candidates with the goal of ensuring a successful procedure and minimizing the risk of conversion. When selecting candidates, we consider these factors:

• size, number, location, and consistency of the fibroids
• patient’s body habitus, and
• relative size of the uterus to the length of the patient’s torso.

Additionally, any concerns raised during the preoperative workup regarding a suspected risk of occult leiomyosarcoma preclude a minimally invasive approach. Otherwise, deciding between 
conventional LM and RALM is based on surgeon preference.

Watch how it’s done

---

View these surgical techniques on the multimedia channel

---

Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy

Arnold P. Advincula, MD, Victoria M. Fratto, MD, and Caroline Key 
A systematic approach to surgery in a 39-year-old woman with heavy menstrual bleeding who desires future fertility. Features include robot-specific techniques that facilitate fibroid enucleation and hysterotomy repair and demonstration of the ExCITE technique for tissue extraction.

 

Laparoscopic myomectomy technique

William H. Parker, MD
A step-by-step demonstration of the laparoscopic myomectomy technique used to resect a 7-cm posterior fibroid in a 44-year-old woman.

 

 

Laparoscopic myomectomy with enclosed transvaginal tissue extraction

Ceana Nezhat, MD, and Erica Dun, MD, MPH
A surgical case of a 41-yearold woman with radiating lower abdominal pain and menorrhagia who desired removal of symptomatic myomas. Preoperative transvaginal ultrasonography revealed a 4-cm posterior pedunculated myoma and a 5-cm fundal intramural myoma.

Continue to: Preoperative MRI guides surgical approach

An MRI scan is a critical component of the patient’s preoperative evaluation. It helps to define the uterine architecture as it relates to fibroids and to rule out the presence of adenomyosis. In general, we do not offer RALM to patients who have more than 15 myomas, a single myoma that is larger than 12 to 15 cm, or when the uterus is more than 2 fingerbreadths above the umbilicus (unless the patient’s torso allows for an adequate insufflated workspace). We also try to avoid preoperative treatment with a gonadotropin–releasing hormone agonist to minimize softening of the myoma and blurring of the dissection planes.

Steps in the procedure

Once the patient is intubated, properly positioned, prepped, and draped, we turn our attention toward peritoneal entry. Factors that influence entry include the patient’s surgical history, radiologic imaging, physical examination (particularly the exam under anesthesia), and surgeon preference for optimizing access. Quite often we use a left upper quadrant entry via Palmer’s point, with subsequent port placement individualized to the patient’s pathology and abdominal topography. Three or more incisions are required to accommodate the camera and at least 2 to 3 operative instruments. Port sizes vary from 5 to 12 mm depending on the desired equipment and surgeon preference (conventional LM versus RALM [FIGURE 1]). 

A uterine manipulator is a crucial tool used when performing LM.²⁷ This instrument enables elevation of the uterus to allow for adequate visualization of the targeted myomas, traction-countertraction during enucleation, and strategic positioning during hysterotomy repair. We also use a bedside-mounted electric uterine positioning system that provides static orientation of the uterus by interfacing with the uterine manipulator, thereby obviating the need for a bedside assistant to provide that service (FIGURE 2).

Once we observe adequate myometrial blanching from the vasopressin administration, we make a strategic hysterotomy incision (preferably transverse) to allow the surgeon to more ergonomically close the defect. We then identify the pseudocapsule so that the surgeon can circumferentially enucleate the myoma and dissect it from its fibrous attachments to the surrounding myometrium.

Continue to: The energy devices used to perform the hysterotomy...

A reliable tenaculum is critical to the success of any enucleation, whether the approach is conventional LM or RALM, in order to provide adequate traction on the myoma (FIGURE 4). We try to minimize the number of hysterotomy incisions not only to reduce further blood loss, as the majority of bleeding ensues from the surrounding myometrium, but also to minimize compromise of myometrial integrity. Additionally, we take care to avoid entry into the endometrial cavity.

As we enucleate a myoma, we place it in either the anterior or posterior cul de sac. Most important, if we enucleate multiple myomas, we keep careful track of their number. We string the myomas together with suture until we extract them to ensure this. 

While hysterotomy closure can be performed with either barbed or nonbarbed sutures in a single- or a multi-layered fashion, we prefer to use a barbed suture.^29,30 Just as enucleation requires appropriate instruments, suturing requires proper needle drivers (FIGURE 5). We advise judicious use of energy to minimize thermal effects and maintain the viability of the surrounding myometrium. Once we have sutured the myometrium closed, we place an adhesion barrier. 

Although discussion of tissue extraction is beyond the scope of this Update, any surgeon embarking on either conventional LM or RALM must have a strategy for safe contained tissue extraction given the recent concerns over uncontained power morcellation.^31,32

Surgical skill and careful patient selection are key to optimal outcomes

Patients seeking conservative surgical management of their uterine fibroids should be considered candidates for either a conventional LM or RALM. Both the scientific literature and technologic advances make these approaches viable options, especially when the surgeon’s skill is appropriate and the patient’s candidacy is adequately vetted. A well thought out surgical strategy from start to finish will ensure the chances for successful completion and optimized outcomes. 

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.