↓ Skip to main content

Options on fibroid morcellation: a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Gynecological Surgery, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 157)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Options on fibroid morcellation: a literature review
Published in
Gynecological Surgery, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10397-015-0878-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans Brölmann, Vasilios Tanos, Grigoris Grimbizis, Thomas Ind, Kevin Philips, Thierry van den Bosch, Samir Sawalhe, Lukas van den Haak, Frank-Willem Jansen, Johanna Pijnenborg, Florin-Andrei Taran, Sara Brucker, Arnaud Wattiez, Rudi Campo, Peter O’Donovan, Rudy Leon de Wilde, On behalf of the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) steering committee on fibroid morcellation

Abstract

In laparoscopy, specimens have to be removed from the abdominal cavity. If the trocar opening or the vaginal outlet is insufficient to pass the specimen, the specimen needs to be reduced. The power morcellator is an instrument with a fast rotating cylindrical knife which aims to divide the tissue into smaller pieces or fragments. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release in April 2014 that discouraged the use of these power morcellators. This article has the objective to review the literature related to complications by power morcellation of uterine fibroids in laparoscopy and offer recommendations to laparoscopic surgeons in gynaecology. This project was initiated by the executive board of the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy. A steering committee on fibroid morcellation was installed and experienced ESGE members requested to chair an action group to address distinct clinical questions. Clinical questions were formulated with regards to the sarcoma risk in presumed uterine fibroids, diagnosis of sarcoma, complications of morcellation and future research. A literature review on the different subjects was conducted, systematic if appropriate and feasible. It was concluded that the true prevalence of uterine sarcoma in presumed fibroids is not known given the wide range of prevalences (0.45-0.014 %) from meta-analyses mainly based on retrospective trials. Age and certain imaging characteristics such as 'lacunes' suggesting necrosis and increased central vascularisation of the tumour are associated with a higher risk of uterine sarcoma, although the risks remain low. There is not enough evidence to estimate this risk in individual patients. Complications of morcellation are rare. Reported are direct morcellation injuries to vessels and bowel, the development of so-called parasitic fibroids requiring reintervention and the spread of sarcoma cells in the abdominal cavity, which may possibly or even likely upstaging the disease. Momentarily in-bag morcellation is investigated as it may possibly prevent morcellation complications. Because of lack of evidence, this literature review cannot give strong recommendations but offers only options which are condensed in a flow chart. Prospective data collection may clarify the issue on sarcoma risk in presumed fibroids and technology to extract tissue laparoscopically from the abdominal cavity should be perfected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 83 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,806,069
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Gynecological Surgery
#8
of 157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,185
of 353,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecological Surgery
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 157 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them