Laparoscopic myomectomy instead of hysteroscopic myomectomy for large submucous fibroids

Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), preterm delivery rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.29; participants = 177; two studies; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; 177 participants; two studies; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04; 115 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.89; participants = 177; two studies; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence), or caesarean section rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; participants = 177; two studies; I² = 21%, very low-quality evidence). Monopolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope One study evaluated the use of two electrosurgical systems during hysteroscopic myomectomy. We are uncertain whether bipolar resectoscope use compared to monopolar resectoscope use improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 68 participants; one study, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.36; 68 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.34; participants = 68; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on preterm delivery or caesarean section rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.

Laparoscopic Myomectomy: An Alternative Approach to Tackling Submucous Myomas?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the differences in perioperative outcomes and immediate complication rates between laparoscopic myomectomy for submucous myomas and laparoscopic myomectomy for myomas in other locations.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital in London.

PATIENTS

A total of 350 patients with symptomatic uterine myomas underwent laparoscopic myomectomy. Thirty-three of these were performed for submucous myomas (group 1), and 317 were for myomas in other uterine locations (group 2).

INTERVENTIONS

Analysis of prospectively collected data on patient demographics, myoma characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and immediate complications.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient demographics, including age, body mass index, and parity, were similar in the 2 groups. No significant differences in myoma characteristics were seen between groups 1 and 2, including the mean dimension of largest myoma (7.1 vs 7.8 cm, respectively; p = .35), mean number of myomas removed (3.8 vs 4.1; p = .665), and mean mass of myomas removed (142.0 g vs 227.3 g; p = .186). There were also no significant between-group differences in any perioperative outcomes, including mean blood loss (226.8 mL vs 266.4 mL; p = .373), duration of surgery (103 minutes vs 113 minutes; p = .264), and duration of hospital stay (1.4 days vs 1.7 days; p = .057). No complications arose from laparoscopic resection of submucous myomas.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic myomectomy for submucous myomas has similar perioperative outcomes and immediate complications as laparoscopic myomectomy for other myomas and can be considered for large or type 2 submucous myomas.