Laparoscopic-Assisted Myomectomy with Bilateral Uterine Artery Occlusion/Ligation

Conventional laparoscopic myomectomy (CLM) and robotic-assisted myomectomy (RAM) are limited in the number and size of myomas that can be removed, whereas abdominal myomectomy (AM) is associated with increased complications and morbidity. Here we evaluated the surgical outcomes of these myomectomy techniques compared with those of laparoscopic-assisted myomectomy (LAM), a hybrid approach that combines laparoscopy and minilaparotomy with bilateral uterine artery occlusion or ligation to control blood loss.

Retrospective chart review (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).

Suburban community hospital.

Women age ≥18 years with nonmalignant indications.

A total of 1313 consecutive CLMs, RAMs, AMs, and LAMs performed between January 2011 and December 2013.

Our review included 163 CLMs (12%), 156 RAMs (12%), 686 AMs (52%), and 308 LAMs (23%). Although the average number, size, and total weight of leiomyomas removed were comparable in the LAM and AM groups (9.1, 8.13 cm, and 391 g, respectively, vs 9.0, 7.5 cm, and 424 g; p < .0001), the number and weight of myomas were significantly greater in those 2 groups compared with the CLM and RAM groups (2.9 and 217 g, respectively, and 2.9 and 269 g; p < .0001). The intraoperative complication rate was highest in the RAM group, and the postoperative complication rate was highest in the AM group, both of which were approximately 3 times greater than the rates in the LAM group. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complication rates between the CLM and LAM groups.

LAM with uterine artery occlusion/ligation is a viable approach for removing large tumor loads while minimizing blood loss and precluding the need for power morcellation.