Minilaparotomy Versus Laparoscopic Myomectomy After Cessation of Power Morcellation: Rate of Wound Complications.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

After the US Food and Drug Administration statement warning against electronic morcellation devices, gynecologic surgeons are performing laparoscopic and robotic myomectomies with minilaparotomy incisions for tissue morcellation and removal. No data exist that focus on the superficial wound complications as a result of these larger incisions. The objective of this study is to compare the rate of wound complications for myomectomy via minilaparotomy versus laparoscopic or robotic myomectomy.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated healthcare delivery system.

PATIENTS

Women > 18 years of age who underwent a myomectomy from either complete laparoscopic or robotic approach (LR) were compared with minilaparotomy myomectomy (MM), comprising complete minilaparotomy (ML) and laparoscopic or robotic assisted by a minilaparotomy for morcellation purposes only (LRM) from January 2011 through December 2014.

INTERVENTION

Myomectomy via LR, complete ML, and LRM.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Medical records were reviewed for outcomes of interest, including superficial wound complications and surgical and demographic data. After exclusion criteria were met, 405 cases were included in the study; 270 cases were classified as MM, which included ML (n = 224), or LRM (n = 46). One hundred thirty-five cases were classified as LR. Parametric and nonparametric analyses were used to compare the 2 groups. There was no significant difference between the groups insofar as patient morbidity, including the primary outcome of wound complications and other postoperative complications; emergency visits; or readmissions. There were 2 (1.5%) wound complications in the LR group and 7 (2.6%) in the MM group (p = .72). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the subcategories of wound complications, including cellulitis, seroma, hematoma, skin separation, wound infection, or postprocedure wound complication. The distribution of estimated blood loss was significantly different between LR and MM groups with an interquartile range of 50 to 150 mL in the LR group versus 50 to 300 mL in the MM group (p < .01). The MM group experienced a shorter procedure time with a median procedure time of 125 minutes compared with 169.5 minutes in LR surgeries (p < .01). The LR group demonstrated a significantly shorter median length of hospital stay (LR 5.0 hours vs MM 23 hours; p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with MM, LR is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and longer operating time but no reduction in wound complication or other patient morbidity.