Endometrial cancer (EC) in young women tends to be early-stage and low-grade; therefore, such cases have good prognoses. Fertility-sparing treatment with progestin is a potential alternative to definitive treatment (i.e., total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic washing, and/or lymphadenectomy) for selected patients. However, no evidence-based consensus or guidelines yet exist, and this topic is subject to much debate. Generally, the ideal candidates for fertility-sparing treatment have been suggested to be young women with grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma confined to the endometrium. Magnetic resonance imaging should be performed to rule out myometrial invasion and extrauterine disease before initiating fertility-sparing treatment. Although various fertility-sparing treatment methods exist, including the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system, metformin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, photodynamic therapy, and hysteroscopic resection, the most common method is high-dose oral progestin (medroxyprogesterone acetate at 500–600 mg daily or megestrol acetate at 160 mg daily). During treatment, re-evaluation of the endometrium with dilation and curettage at 3 months is recommended. Although no consensus exists regarding the ideal duration of maintenance treatment after achieving regression, it is reasonable to consider maintaining the progestin therapy until pregnancy with individualization. According to the literature, the ovarian stimulation drugs used for fertility treatments appear safe. Hysterectomy should be performed after childbearing, and hysterectomy without oophorectomy can also be considered for young women. The available evidence suggests that fertility-sparing treatment is effective and does not appear to worsen the prognosis. If an eligible patient strongly desires fertility despite the risk of recurrence, the clinician should consider fertility-sparing treatment with close follow-up.
Background: We hypothesized that the total operative time of robot myomectomy (RM) is shorter than that of laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) in cases where numerous myomas are removed, due to the faster suturing time of the robotic system. To verify this, we compared the surgical outcomes of RM vs LM for the number of myomas removed. Methods: The medical records of 144 women underwent LM and 121 women underwent RM by a single surgeon were reviewed. Results: The operative time did not statistically differ between the groups, even when the number of removed myomas was more than 12 (200.6 ± 48.2 vs 196.0 ± 48.4 minutes, P = .791). Note that in our logistic regression analysis, the operation type was excluded from the independent risk factors prolonging operative time. Conclusion: RM showed a similar operative time relative to LM regardless of the number of myomas removed (numerous or not).
Background: To introduce a hybrid robotic single-site myomectomy (H-RSSM) technique that includes laparoscopic single-site myoma excision followed by robotic single-site suture and compare its surgical outcomes with those of conventional robotic single-site myomectomy (RSSM) using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Methods: Medical records of 89 consecutive women who underwent H-RSSM and 131 consecutive women who underwent RSSM were retrospectively reviewed. Patients characteristics and surgical outcomes were evaluated and compared between two groups. Results: The H-RSSM group had a significantly reduced operation time (98.7 ± 31.7 vs 141.4 ± 54.4 min, P < .001) and lower estimated blood loss (131.5 ± 78.1 vs 212.3 ± 189.8 mL, P < .001). Peritoneal adhesions were reported significantly more in the H-RSSM group than in the RSSM group (27.0% vs 9.2%, P < .001).Conclusion: H-RSSM was found to be associated with reduced operative time and lower estimated blood loss. However, further prospective studies are needed to clarify these advantages.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.