Long-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using a modified suture technique

8Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the long-term outcomes, including the pregnancy outcome and recurrence rate after single-port laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) using a modified suture technique with a Hem-o-lok clip (Choi's LM) and conventional 4-port LM. Methods A retrospective study of patients who underwent Choi's LM (n=55) and 4-port LM (n=102) in a single institutional hospital was conducted. Patients with <3 symptomatic myomas sized <10 cm each and operated on by a single surgeon were included. Recurrence was confirmed when a myoma measuring ≥3 cm was detected. Results The patients in both groups had similar demographic characteristics. Single (76.4% vs. 62.7%) and intramural (52.7% vs. 56.9%) tumors were commonly detected in both groups in the mean diameter (6.8±1.5 cm vs. 7.0±1.6 cm; P=0.40). In Choi's LM, 16 patients (29.1%) needed an additional port; those who were nulliparous and/or had a large leiomyoma more frequently required an additional port (P=0.023 and 0.04, respectively). During a median follow-up period of 69 months, 17 patients (7.1% vs. 14.6%) had recurrence. The size of dominant myomas at recurrence was significantly smaller in patients who underwent Choi's LM (3.4±0.7 cm vs. 5.7±2.4 cm; P=0.004). All 13 patients in both groups who successfully conceived had a full-term delivery. No major complications occurred during pregnancy. Conclusion Although an additional port was frequently used, the long-term outcomes of patients who experienced recurrence and pregnancy after Choi's LM were acceptable. Considering its usability, Choi's LM is feasible for the treatment of uterine leiomyoma.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kang, M., Kim, J., Kim, T. J., Lee, J. W., Kim, B. G., Bae, D. S., & Choi, C. H. (2020). Long-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using a modified suture technique. Obstetrics and Gynecology Science, 63(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2020.63.2.164

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free