Schneyer Rebecca J, Meyer Raanan, Barker Margot L, Hamilton Kacey M, Siedhoff Matthew T, Truong Mireille D, Wright Kelly N
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Schneyer, Meyer, Barker, Hamilton, Siedhoff, Truong, and Wright), Los Angeles, California.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Schneyer, Meyer, Barker, Hamilton, Siedhoff, Truong, and Wright), Los Angeles, California; Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University (Meyer), Tel-Aviv, Israel; The Dr. Pinchas Bornstein Talpiot Medical Leadership Program, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer (Meyer), Ramat-Gan, Israel.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2025 Mar;32(3):220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.11.013. Epub 2024 Dec 2.
To compare surgical outcomes among patients undergoing minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM) or abdominal myomectomy (AM) with MIGS subspecialists versus general obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs), and to characterize the complexity of myomectomies by surgeon type.
Retrospective cohort study.
Quaternary care institution.
Patients who underwent MIM (laparoscopic or robotic) or AM with a fellowship-trained MIGS subspecialist or general OB/GYN from March 15, 2015 to March 14, 2020.
Myomectomy.
Of 609 myomectomies, 460 (75.5%) were MIM, 404 (87.8%) of which were performed by MIGS subspecialists. The remaining 149 (24.5%) cases were AM, 36 (24.1%) of which were performed by MIGS subspecialists. Compared to general OB/GYNs, MIGS subspecialists excised a greater number of fibroids for both MIM (median 3.0 [range 1.0-30.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-9.0], p <.001) and AM (21.0 [10.0-60.0] vs 6.0 [1.0-42.0], p <.001), and had a greater proportion of uteri >20 weeks size for AM (22.2% vs 3.5%, p = .003). Composite perioperative complication rates were significantly higher for general OB/GYNs than for MIGS subspecialists (29.0% vs 11.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48-4.92). In a subgroup analysis of MIM only, general OB/GYNs had higher rates of composite perioperative complications (28.6% vs 9.9%, aOR 4.51, 95% CI 2.27-8.97), excessive blood loss and/or transfusion (10.7% vs 3.0%, unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.92, 95% CI 1.41-10.91), surgery time ≥ 90th percentile (25.0% vs 8.9%, aOR 5.05, 95% CI 2.39-10.64), and conversions to laparotomy (10.7% vs 0.2%, unadjusted OR 48.36, 95% CI 5.71-409.93). For AM only, there were no significant differences in perioperative complication rates between groups.
Fellowship-trained MIGS subspecialists had improved surgical outcomes for MIM compared to general OB/GYNs, with fewer conversions to laparotomy, reduced surgery time, and less blood loss, while outcomes for AM were similar by surgeon type. MIGS subspecialists excised a greater number of fibroids regardless of surgical approach, highlighting a level of comfort in complex benign gynecology beyond endoscopic surgery at our institution.
比较由微创妇科手术(MIGS)亚专科医生与普通妇产科医生进行微创子宫肌瘤切除术(MIM)或开腹子宫肌瘤切除术(AM)的患者的手术结局,并按外科医生类型描述子宫肌瘤切除术的复杂性。
回顾性队列研究。
四级医疗机构。
2015年3月15日至2020年3月14日期间接受由接受过 fellowship 培训的MIGS亚专科医生或普通妇产科医生进行的MIM(腹腔镜或机器人手术)或AM的患者。
子宫肌瘤切除术。
在609例子宫肌瘤切除术中,460例(75.5%)为MIM,其中404例(87.8%)由MIGS亚专科医生进行。其余149例(24.5%)为AM,其中36例(24.1%)由MIGS亚专科医生进行。与普通妇产科医生相比,MIGS亚专科医生在MIM(中位数3.0 [范围1.0 - 30.0] 对2.0 [1.0 - 9.0],p <.001)和AM(21.0 [10.0 - 60.0] 对6.0 [1.0 - 42.0],p <.001)中切除的肌瘤数量更多,并且在AM中子宫大小>20周的比例更高(22.2%对3.5%,p =.003)。普通妇产科医生的围手术期综合并发症发生率显著高于MIGS亚专科医生(29.0%对11.8%,调整后优势比[aOR] 2.70,95%置信区间[CI] 1.48 - 4.92)。在仅针对MIM的亚组分析中,普通妇产科医生的围手术期综合并发症发生率更高(28.6%对9.9%,aOR 4.51,95% CI 2.27 - 8.97)、失血过多和/或输血(10.7%对3.0%,未调整优势比[OR] 3.92,95% CI 1.41 - 10.91)、手术时间≥第90百分位数(25.0%对8.9%,aOR 5.05,95% CI 2.39 - 10.64)以及转为开腹手术(10.7%对0.2%,未调整OR 48.36,95% CI 5.71 - 409.93)。仅针对AM,两组之间围手术期并发症发生率无显著差异。
与普通妇产科医生相比,接受过 fellowship 培训的MIGS亚专科医生进行MIM的手术结局更好,转为开腹手术的情况更少,手术时间缩短,失血更少,而AM的结局在不同外科医生类型之间相似。无论手术方式如何,MIGS亚专科医生切除的肌瘤数量更多,这突出了在我们机构中,他们在复杂良性妇科手术(不仅仅是内镜手术)方面的熟练程度。