Minimally Invasive Myomectomy: A Systematic Review of Techniques, Challenges, and Fertility Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uterine fibroids represent a prevalent gynecological condition with significant implications for fertility and quality of life. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and fertility outcomes of minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM) techniques, including laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM), and single-port laparoscopic myomectomy (SPLM), and non-invasive approaches such as ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we analyzed 17 studies encompassing diverse surgical methods and reproductive outcomes, with quality assessment performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Key findings demonstrate that MIM techniques yield favorable fertility outcomes compared to traditional abdominal myomectomy. Among the included studies, 10 were rated as low risk of bias and 7 as moderate risk on the NOS. Laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy (LESS-M) and SPLM were associated with higher pregnancy rates (66.7% and 75%, respectively) and shorter time to conception (7.6 vs. 10.1 months for LESS-M vs. conventional LM). RALM showed promise in complex cases, with pregnancy rates of 13-66.7% and no reported uterine ruptures. Non-invasive USgHIFU offered comparable pregnancy rates to LM but was linked to shorter conception times and mixed fetal outcomes, including higher preterm birth rates. Surgical nuances, such as barbed versus nonbarbed sutures, did not significantly impact fertility, while fibroid characteristics and surgeon expertise played pivotal roles. Vaginal birth after LM was deemed safe, with no uterine ruptures reported in large cohorts. However, heterogeneity in study designs, retrospective biases, and limited long-term follow-up data underscore the need for standardized protocols and prospective trials. MIM techniques are a viable option for women seeking fertility preservation, offering reduced morbidity and comparable or superior reproductive outcomes. Future research should prioritize multicenter studies to optimize patient selection and surgical standardization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".