Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2025
Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Leads to a Larger Intraabdominal Volume During Laparoscopy
Published on: June 25, 2013
Single-Site Robotic Myomectomy without Accessory Instrument Compared with Two-Port Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Objectives:
Despite the advantages of robotic technology, single-site robotic myomectomy (SSRM) without an accessory instrument is limited by a restricted range of motion, weaker suturing of a thick myometrium, and non-articulating instruments. We present our novel gradual turning out method (GTOM) of SSRM and our assessment of its feasibility and safety by comparing its perioperative outcomes with those of two-port laparoscopic myomectomy (LM).
Design:
A retrospective cohort case-control study was carried out.
Methods:
This study included consecutive 46 patients who underwent SSRM for intramural myomas larger than 7 cm, from 2016 to 2019. Subsequently, 46 patients who underwent LM were selected by 1:1 propensity score matching by controlling for age, body mass index, myoma number, myoma diameter, and the presence of sexual intercourse. The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. The effect of covariates on operation time was analyzed using univariable and multivariable linear regression.
Results:
SSRM was performed successfully with GTOM for myomas of up to 14 cm in the longest diameter, without conversion to laparotomy and intraoperative injuries. No differences between the groups were found in length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin level decrease, transfusion rate, and postoperative pain, but operative time was significantly longer in the SSRM group than in the LM group (p < 0.001). Larger myomas, location of the lower segment, and the operation method of SSRM were significantly associated with a longer operation time. Whereas operation time for myomas located at the anterior wall, singleton myomas, and myomas <10 cm was significantly longer in the SSRM group than in the LM group, that for myomas at the posterior or lateral side of the uterus, multiple myomas, and myomas ≥10 cm did not differ significantly between the groups, indicating the advantage of SSRM for difficult myomectomy.
Limitations:
Retrospective nature of the study and limitation to a single-center study are the limitations of the study.
Conclusions:
Despite the lack of an accessory instrument, SSRM using the GOTM was feasible and safe as it yielded similar perioperative outcomes to those of LM.
