Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Nov - Dec;26(7):1288-1296. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.008. Epub 2018 Dec 16.

Comparison of the Technical Feasibility and Safety of Three Contained Morcellation Techniques: A Pilot Study in an Animal Model.

Author information

1
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Drs. Aoki, Kanao, Nomura, Okamoto, Hisa, Sugihara, Omatsu, Tanigawa, and Takeshima), Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: youichiaokijp@yahoo.co.jp.
2
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital (Drs. Aoki, Kanao, Nomura, Okamoto, Hisa, Sugihara, Omatsu, Tanigawa, and Takeshima), Tokyo, Japan.
3
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital (Dr. Kikuchi), Urayasu, Japan.
4
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital (Dr. Kitano), Tsuchiura, Japan.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

To compare 3 laparoscopic contained morcellation techniques in terms of feasibility and safety.

DESIGN:

Pilot study in an animal model (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).

SETTING:

Gynecologic oncology department at a cancer institute in Japan.

PATIENTS:

Porcine model.

INTERVENTIONS:

Three contained morcellation techniques were tested, each multiple times in 1 of 3 anesthetized female pigs: manual morcellation (8 times), dual-site power morcellation (8 times), and single-site power morcellation (6 times). All were tested on beef tongue introduced abdominally.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

The following variables were compared: bag insertion time, morcellation time, bag removal time, total in-bag morcellation time, and the volume of pneumoperitoneum CO2 consumed. Bag rupture was evaluated ex vivo on completion of the procedure. Bag insertion time (in minutes) was significantly greater for dual-site morcellation (10.91 ± 3.38) than for manual (4.58 ± 2.47, p = .003) or single-site power (7.25 ± .77, p = .014) morcellation. Bag removal time (in minutes) was also significantly greater for dual-site morcellation (.85 ± .11 vs .27 ± .14, p<.001, vs .33 ± .59, p = .001). Total in-bag morcellation time, although greatest for manual morcellation at 21.4 ± 10.2 minutes, did not differ significantly between techniques. CO2 consumption was significantly low for manual morcellation. Visual inspection revealed no bag damage when manual morcellation was performed, but bag damage occurred in 3 dual-site cases and in 1 single-site case.

CONCLUSION:

Considering preventing specimen leakage as the main aim of contained morcellation, the bag used for power morcellation needs improvement. Although manual morcellation requires an umbilical wound of about 25 mm, the absence of bag damage, acceptable total morcellation time, relatively low CO2 consumption, and nonuse of a power device, which translate to an economic benefit, lead us to conclude that manual morcellation will remain advantageous into the future.

KEYWORDS:

In-bag morcellation; Laparoscopic surgery; Power morcellation

PMID:
30562578
DOI:
10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.008

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center