Skip to main content
Log in

ESGE survey on tissue power morcellation complications other than leiomyosarcoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gynecological Surgery

Abstract

The exact incidence of power morcellation complications (PMC) is unknown and probably underestimated. Medical literature mainly describes case reports and the vast majority of complications after tissue power morcellation are not reported. ESGE has run a survey among its members about complications emerging after laparoscopic electromechanical morcellation including the risk of leiomyosarcoma (LMS). The reported risk of a sarcoma after myoma or uterus morcellation is low and presented in a separate article. The Central office using the ESGE server and website, activating the ‘Survey Monkey’ programme, sent a request to 3422 ESGE members to answer, anonymously, a structured electronic questionnaire with multiple structured answer options, within 3 months. The doctors responding to the call were automatically given a serial number in an EXCEL spreadsheet, enabling statistical analysis using the SPSS v.18. The probabilities were calculated by using the raw data as reported to each individual question, dividing the number of incidence with surgeon’s lifetime experience in laparoscopic surgery. The electronic questionnaire was answered by 216 (6 %) surgeons. The majority of the respondents used the morcellator for 10 years. The overall probability of direct power morcellator injuries to internal organs is more frequent (0.12 %) than that of morcellator injuries to the abdominal and pelvic wall (0.06 %). The risk of parasitic myoma is estimated 0.08 and 0.16 % for the de novo endometriosis after myoma and adenomyoma morcellation. Furthermore, the vast majority of surgeons have never experienced bladder or ureter, aorta and vessel injuries by using the morcellator, proven by the standard deviation being close to zero. Three surgeons with morcellator experience between 1 and 5 years were involved in an injury that caused permanent damage, 1 nerve, 2 bowel and 1 port-site hernia injury due to the morcellator. According to surgeons’ answers, death has never occurred after power morcellation. Morcellator technical problems found also to be of low probability between 0.12 and 0.3 % as estimated for all endoscopic surgeries in lifetime of 188 surgeons. The average number of times per doctor where the morcellator stacked and stopped working is 2.17 with standard deviation equal to 4.4 and sum of incidents equal to 426 times for all 196 doctors. The most frequent technical problem was morcellator transient stacking and the least frequent was the morcellator stopped working and colpotomy needed to evacuate the tissue out of the abdominal cavity 0.12 % operations. The majority of surgeons 136/188 (72 %) are using reusable morcellator devices and 51 (27 %) are using disposable devices. Moreover, 97/188 (51.6 %) of surgeons are using exclusively, only reusable morcellators; 56/188 (29.8 %) are using both disposable and reusable types of morcellators. The incidence of power morcellation complications is very low reputedly. The ESGE board advises that endoscopic operations must be performed only by doctors who have had an adequate training and knowledge. It is compulsory to know the publications about dangers, contraindications and complications before performing these operations. A complete knowledge of techniques and principles of endoscopic surgery is needed to avoid and minimize complications. A training session prior to morcellator first use might decrease further PMC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milad MP (2014) Milad EA laparoscopic morcellator-related complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):486–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Milad MP (2003) Sokol E laparoscopic morcellator-related injuries. Am J Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(3):383–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Brown J, Olive DL (2015) Outcome of occult uterine leiomyosarcoma after surgery for presumed uterine fibroids: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(1):26–33. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hagemann IS, Hagemann AR, LiVolsi VA, Montone KT, Chu CS (2011) Risk of occult malignancy in morcellated hysterectomy: a case series. Int J Gynecol Pathol 30(5):476–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rivard C, Salhadar A, Kenton K (2012) New challenges in detecting, grading, and staging endometrial cancer after uterine morcellation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(3):313–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Goffinet F, Bréart G, Dubuisson JB (2002) Laparoscopic surgery is not inherently dangerous for patients presenting with benign gynaecologic pathology. Results of a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 17(5):1334–1342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiser A, Holcroft CA, Tulandi T, Abenhaim HA (2013) Abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign diseases: evaluation of morbidity and mortality among 465,798 cases. Gynecol Surg 10(2):117–122 First online: 12 January 2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jin C, Hu Y, Chen XC, Zheng FY, Lin F, Zhou K, Chen FD, Gu HZ (2009) Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 145(1):14–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tanos V, Brölmann H, DeWilde RL, O’Donovan P, Campo R (2015) Myoma morcellation and leiomyosarcoma panic. Gynecol Surg 12:17–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brölmann H, Tanos V, Grimbizis G, Ind T, Philips K, van den Bosch T, Sawalhe S, van den Haak L, Jansen FW, Pijenenborg J, Taran FA, Brucker S, Waiez A, Campo R, O’Donovan P, DeWilde RL (2015) Options on fibroid morcellation: a literature review. J Gynecol Surg 12:3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2009) A series of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG 116(4):492–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cucinella G, Granese R, Calagna G, Somigliana E (2011) Perino a parasitic myomas after laparoscopic surgery: an emerging complication in the use of morcellator? Description of four cases. Fertil Steril 96(2):e90–e96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leren V, Langebrekke A, Qvigstad E (2012) Parasitic leiomyomas after laparoscopic surgery with morcellation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(10):1233–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van der Meulen JF, Pijnenborg J, Boomsma CM, Verberg M, Geomini P, Bongers MY (2015) Parasitic myoma after laparoscopic morcellation: a systematic review of the literature. BJOG. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinha R, Hegde A, Mahajan C, Dubey N, Sundaram M (2008) Laparoscopic myomectomy: do size, number, and location of the myomas form limiting factors for laparoscopic myomectomy? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):292–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ordulu Z, Dal CP, Chong WW, Choy KW, Lee C, Muto MG et al (2010) Disseminated peritoneal leiomyomatosis after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with characteristic molecular cytogenetic findings of uterine leiomyoma. Genes Chromosom Cancer 49(12):1152–1160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kunz G, Beil D, Huppert P, Leyendecker G (2000) Structural abnormalities of the uterine wall in women with endometriosis and infertility visualized by vaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod 15:76–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen SL, Greenberg JA, Wang KC, Srouji SS, Gargiulo AR, Pozner CN et al (2014) Risk of leakage and tissue dissemination with various contained tissue extraction (CTE) techniques: an in vitro pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:10

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen SL, Einarsson JI, Wang KC, Brown D, Boruta D, Scheib SA et al (2014) Contained power morcellation within an insufflated isolation bag. Obstet Gynecol 124(3):491–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Einarsson JI, Cohen SL, Fuchs N, Wang KC (2014) In bag morcellation (IBM). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:10

    Google Scholar 

  21. Favero G (2013) Tips and tricks for successful manual morcellation: a response to “vaginal morcellation: a new strategy for large gynecological malignant tumors extraction. A pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 128(1):151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu SD, Lesani OA, Zhao LC, Johnston WK, Wolf JS Jr, Clayman RV et al (2009) A multi-institutional study on the safety and efficacy of specimen morcellation after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinical stage T1 or T2 renal cell carcinoma. J Endourol 23(9):1513–1518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Barrett PH, Fentie DD, Taranger LA (1998) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with morcellation for renal cell carcinoma: the Saskatoon experience. Urology 52(1):23–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Parekh AR, Moran ME, Newkirk RE, Desai PJ, Calvano CJ (2000) Tissue removal utilizing steiner morcellator within a lapsac: effects of a fluid-filled environment. J Endourol 14(2):185–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Verdaasdonk EGG, Stassen LPS, Widhiasmara PP, Dankelman J (2009) Requirements for the design and implementation of checklists for surgical processes. Surg Endosc 23:715–726

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Baker GR, Norton P, Flintoft V et al (2004) The Canadian adverse events study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 170(11):1678–1686

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Arkenbout EA, van den Haak L, Driessen SR, Thurkow AL, Jansen FW (2014) Assessing basic ‘physiology’of the morcellation process and tissue spread: a time action analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynaecol pii S1553-4650(14):01448–01444. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.009

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Rhona O’Flaherty, Head ESGE Central Office, Diestsevest 43/0001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, for her great assistance in administration and data mining of the survey results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasilios Tanos.

Ethics declarations

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Campo Rudi: He is a consultant for Karl Storz endoscope.

Prof. Rudi Leon De Wilde: He receives reimbursement of travel expenses to International congresses by the Karl Storz Company.

Prof. Hans Brölmann: He does research project with Olympus, Gynesonics and Gedeon-Richter without any personal fees.

Prof. Peter O’Donovan: He provides consultancy advice to both Karl Storz and Lina medical in the last year in the field of ambulatory gynaecology nothing linked with morcellation.

They declare that their relation with the companies mentioned above have no impact upon the scientific value and the content of the submitted article entitled ‘ESGE survey on tissue power morcellation complications other than leiomyosarcoma’ assigned by manuscript number.

Prof. Vasilios Tanos declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Mrs. Elina Symeonidou declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

This article does not contain patient data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tanos, V., Brölmann, H., De Wilde, R.L. et al. ESGE survey on tissue power morcellation complications other than leiomyosarcoma. Gynecol Surg 13, 281–288 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0987-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0987-8

Keywords

Navigation