Laparoscopic specimen retrieval and attitudes towards morcellation: a questionnaire survey of gynaecology consultants in the United Kingdom

Getting square pegs out through round holes: A survey of Australian and New Zealand Gynaecologists regarding specimen retrieval

AIMS

To evaluate morcellation practices among Fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RANZCOG Fellows were invited to complete an online survey. This anonymous, cross-sectional survey consisted of 29 questions regarding demographics and morcellation practices.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty eight (19.04%) of 2300 RANZCOG Fellows responded, and of these 258 (11.22%) completed the entire survey; analysis was undertaken on data from the latter respondents. Respondents were broadly representative of all RANZCOG Fellows regarding gender, age, and location. Of the respondents, 53.10% considered themselves advanced laparoscopic surgeons. Of respondents who had worked as gynaecology consultants prior to 2014, 39.39% used uncontained power morcellation prior to 2014, compared to 17.58% since (a decrease of 44.63%). The most common reasons for utilising uncontained power morcellation less often were the 2014 Food and Drug Administration warnings (40.31%), risk of adverse outcomes (33.72%), and recommendations from colleges such as RANZCOG (27.13%). When undertaking an operation that required specimen extraction, the most common methods used were: employing an open approach from the get-go (utilised by respondents in 31.01% of such cases); contained manual morcellation (28.90%); and conversion to intra-operative laparotomy (10.10%).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a strong trend away from uncontained power morcellation since 2014, with a 36.00% increase in clinicians who never use uncontained power morcellation, and an 80.65% decrease in clinicians who always use this method of specimen extraction. The most common reason cited for employing uncontained power morcellation less often was the 2014 Food and Drug Administration's warnings.

Each Uterus Counts: A narrative review of health disparities in benign gynaecology and minimal access surgery

INTRODUCTION

Health disparities exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic have prompted healthcare professionals to investigate disparities within their own specialty. Racial and ethnic disparities in obstetrics are well documented but inequities in gynaecology are less well known. Our aim is to review the literature on two commonly performed procedures, hysterectomy and myomectomy, and one condition, ectopic pregnancy, to evaluate the prevalence of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in benign gynaecology and minimal access surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of 33 articles identified from a Pubmed using the following search criteria; "race"; "ethnicity"; "socioeconomic status"; "disparity"; "inequity"; and "inequality". Case reports and papers assessing gynaecological malignancy were excluded.

RESULTS

Despite minimal access surgery having fewer complications and faster recovery than open surgery, US studies have shown that black and ethnic minority women are less likely than white women to have minimally invasive hysterectomies and myomectomies. Uninsured women and patients on Medicaid are also less likely to receive minimally invasive procedures. Contributing factors include fibroid size, geographic location and access to hospitals performing minimal access surgery, and the discontinuation of power morcellation. Ethnic minority women who receive minimally invasive myomectomy have been shown to have a higher risk of complications and prolonged recovery. Black and ethnic minority women also have a higher risk of morbidity and mortality from ectopic pregnancy and are more likely to receive surgical than medical management.

CONCLUSION

Extensive study from the US has demonstrated disparities in access to minimally invasive gynaecological surgery, whereas in the UK the data is infrequent, inconsistent and incomplete. Little is known about the influence of patient preference and counselling as well as institutional bias on health equity in gynaecology. Further research is necessary to identify interventions that mitigate these disparities in access and outcomes.

Rethinking the Issue of Power Morcellation of Uterine Fibroids: Is Morcellation the Real Problem or Is this Another Symptom of Disparity in Healthcare Provision?

Power morcellation remains one of the most significant developments in minimal access surgery over the past decade, allowing many more patients to benefit from the least invasive surgical route. However, its use is not without controversy, particularly with regards to the risks of an undiagnosed leiomyosarcoma. Increased media and, in particular, on-going social media coverage since events in 2014 have only served to intensify the debate, culminating in the Food and Drug Administration essentially 'banning' its use in the USA. Practice however continues to vary and this technique remains widely used in Europe and in particular the UK. The aim of this article was to review the development of power morcellation in gynaecology and the underlying risks, including that of undiagnosed leiomyosarcoma, as well as appraise the evolving literature on patient awareness and informed consent and the wider implications of morcellation restriction.