A comparative retrospective analysis on robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy in case of myomectomy: experience in a third-level hospital of Southern Italy.

Uterine myomas are the most common gynecological disease in reproductive-aged women, present several symptoms, and require effective medical and/or surgical strategies. This study aimed to compare robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM) with laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) in terms of operative times, intraoperative estimated blood loss, pre- and post-hemoglobin levels drop, and length of hospital stay. Data from 50 clinical records (25 RALM in Group A and 25 LM in Group B) of patients with uterine fibroids were collected from December 2022 to December 2023 at Gynecological Unit of DAI Materno-Infantile Federico II in Naples, Italy. Patients aged 30-49 years with symptomatic fibroids were included. Data on peri-operative outcomes, including operative time for myomectomy (OTM), overall operative time (OOT), intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), pre- and post-operative hemoglobin levels, and length of hospital stay were analyzed. The OTM in the presence of > 5 myomas was 59 [52-65] vs 69 min [61-96] (p < 0.001) for RALM and LM groups, respectively. Moreover, also in presence of ≤ 5 myomas, a difference was observed in the RALM group 48[43-55] compared to the LM group 53[50-61] min (p = 0.07). The OOT was also statistically significant for Group A compared to Group B (83[65-93] vs 72[56-110] min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of pre- and post-operative hemoglobin levels and EBL (p = 0.178). Group A demonstrated a notably shorter hospital stay 1.2 [1-2] days compared to Group B 2.9[3-3.75] days (p = 0.007). Our study suggests potential advantages of RALM over LM in terms of reduced operative times and shorter hospital stays. The standardized approach and extensive surgical experience likely contributed to the favorable outcomes of RALM.

Findings from the Use of Spinal Anesthesia in the Laparoscopic Treatment of Extrauterine Pregnancy: Could It Represent an Alternative to General Anesthesia?

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive procedures performed in laparoscopy, such as salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy, can be combined with a minimally invasive anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy under spinal anesthesia (SA) compared to general anesthesia (GA) from the point of view of the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and patient. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at DAI Materno Infantile of AOU Federico II of Naples, analyzing all medical records of women who met the inclusion criteria between April 2020 and April 2023. Eighty-two women (35 under SA in group A and 47 under GA in group B) undergone elective or emergency laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic tubal or ovarian pregnancy were included. RESULTS: Patients in group A reported less pain at 0 h (adjusted mean difference: -1.5; 95% CI: -2.3 to -0.7; p < 0.001) and after 6 h (adjusted mean difference: -1.1; 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.3; p = 0.01) while no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 12 and 24 h after surgery. No differences were observed among the type of analgesic and during the postoperative observation time, except for paracetamol at 0 h in group B. A faster resumption of bowel motility, patient's mobilization, and a shorter hospital stay were observed in group A compared to group B. Also greater odds of returning faster to daily activities emerged in group A (adjusted OR: 5.39; 95% CI: 1.77-16.37). A greater number of patients in group A were satisfied with the entire procedure compared to those of group B (33 [94.3%] vs. 37 [78.7%]). The general surgeon satisfaction was always very good or excellent in group A. Finally, all surgical steps were well tolerated in group A. CONCLUSION: In specific settings, SA is a feasible and safe procedure for the laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

Fertility-Sparing Approach in Patients with Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer Grade 2 Stage IA (FIGO): A Qualitative Systematic Review.

Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic malignancy, mostly in postmenopausal women. The gold standard treatment for EC is surgery, but in the early stages, it is possible to opt for conservative treatment. In the last decade, different clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who respond to conservative treatment. A lot of immunohistochemical markers have been evaluated to predict response to progestin treatment, even if their usefulness is still unclear; the prognosis of this neoplasm depends on tumor stage, and a specific therapeutic protocol is set according to the stage of the disease. Objective: (1) To provide an overview of the conservative management of Stage 1A Grade (G) 2 endometrioid EC (FIGO) and the oncological and reproductive outcomes related; (2) to describe the molecular alterations before and after progestin therapy in patients undergoing conservative treatment. Materials and Methods: A systematic computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library), from 2010 to September 2021, in order to evaluate the oncological and reproductive outcomes in patients with G2 stage IA EC who ask for fertility-sparing treatment. The expression of several immunohistochemical markers was evaluated in pretreatment phase and during the follow-up in relation to response to hormonal therapy. Only scientific publications in English were included. The risk of bias assessment was performed. Review authors' judgments were categorized as "low risk," "high risk," or "unclear risk" of bias. Results: Twelve articles were included in the study: 7 observational studies and 5 case series/reports. Eighty-four patients who took progestins (megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and/or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices) were analyzed. The publication bias analysis turned out to be "low." 54/84 patients had a complete response, 23/84 patients underwent radical surgery, and 20/84 had a relapse after conservative treatment. Twenty-two patients had a pregnancy. The length of follow-up was variable, from 6 to 142 months according to the different studies analyzed. Several clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who do not respond to conservative treatment: PR and ER were the most studied predictive markers, in particular PR appeared as the most promising; MMR, SPAG9, Ki67, and Nrf2-survivin pathway provided good results with a significant association with a good response to progestin therapy. However, no reliable predictive markers are currently available to be used in clinical practice. Conclusions: The conservative treatment may be an option for patients with stage IA G2 EEC who desire to preserve their fertility. The immunohistochemical markers evaluation looks promising in predicting response to conservative treatment. Further large series and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.