Spontaneous preterm recurrent fundal uterine rupture at 26 weeks following laparoscopic myomectomy

Uterine Rupture in Pregnancy following Two Abdominal Myomectomies and IVF

Objective

Uterine rupture (UR) during pregnancy is an obstetric emergency that could determine poor maternal and neonatal outcomes. There are many factors that could increase the risk of UR, such as a previous myomectomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of a previous myomectomy in a spontaneous UR in pregnancy.

Methods

A 33-year-old primigravida comes to our obstetric emergency room for pelvic pain at 29 weeks of gestation. In her medical history, there were two previous surgical operations of abdominal myomectomy, one in 2015 and one in January 2021 (6 months before conception). After 34 minutes, a pubo-subumbilical longitudinal laparotomy was performed for pathological decelerations in the cardiotocography. In the peritoneal cavity, there was 500 mL of blood serum liquid. The right arm and shoulder of the fetus were extending out of the uterus across a breach of 5 cm near the right tubal corner. A corporal incision was performed, and a healthy baby was born and moved to neonatal intensive unit care.

Results

A UR can occur at any stage of pregnancy, mostly during the third trimester of pregnancy. Risk factors that increase the incidence of a uterine rupture after myomectomy include a short period (i.e., <12 months) between the myomectomy and conception, the opening of the endometrial cavity, and large myomas (with a maximum diameter above 4 cm). Uterine rupture during pregnancy after abdominal myomectomy seems to be less frequent than after a laparoscopic one.

Conclusion

Uterine rupture is an obstetric emergency; it is mandatory to consider this eventuality in pregnancy, particularly in the third trimester, if there was a previous laparoscopic myomectomy in the anamnesis of the patient.

Time to conceive after myomectomy: should we advise a minimum time interval? A systematic review

The optimal time interval between myomectomy and pregnancy is unclear and no specific guidelines exist. The aim of this review was to study the time interval from myomectomy to pregnancy and the occurrence of uterine rupture after myomectomy. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and retrospective studies were used to assess the primary objective, and case reports, cases series or letters to the editor for the secondary objective. Only articles reporting myomectomy performed via the vaginal route, laparotomy, laparoscopy or robot-assisted surgery were selected for inclusion. Among 3852 women who wanted to become pregnant after the surgery, 2889 became pregnant, accounting for 3000 pregnancies (77.9%) and 2097 live births (54.4%). Mean time between myomectomy and pregnancy was estimated at 17.6 months (SD 9.2) for 2451 pregnant women. Among 1016 women, a third were advised to delay attempting to conceive for between 3 and 6 months and another third for between 6 and 12 months. A total of 70 spontaneous uterine ruptures with a mean gestational age of 31 weeks at occurrence were identified. No linear relationship was found between gestational age at the event and time interval from myomectomy to conception (P = 0.706). There are insufficient data to advise a minimal time interval between myomectomy and conception.

A Suturing Method without Exposure of Barbs on the Wound Surface Using a Unidirectional Barbed Monofilament Absorbable Suture (STRATAFIX™) in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Feasibility Study

Objectives:

We examined whether a new suturing method that used a single-thread unidirectional barbed suture without exposing the barbs on the wound surface was acceptable compared with the conventional suture method during laparoscopic myomectomy (LM).

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective study. The subjects were 26 women who underwent LM for symptomatic uterine fibroids. The operative time, amount of blood loss, and number of threads used were compared between a group in which suturing was performed with a conventional synthetic absorbable suture (conventional suture group, n = 13) and a group in which suturing was performed using a barbed suture (barbed suture group, n = 13).

Results:

Operative time in the barbed suture group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional suture group, while blood loss during LM in the barbed suture group was significantly lower than that in the conventional suture group. The number of threads used in the conventional suture group was significantly larger than that in the barbed suture group. No complications were observed in both the groups during LM.

Conclusion:

This new technique using a barbed suture is safe and feasible for LM.