Likelihood of Accomplishing an In-Patient Hysteroscopic Myomectomy in a One-Step Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 1

Description of series in each study.

Author	Country	Type of study quality score	Patients treated	Mean age	Other surgeries	Rate of GnRh agonist	Technique	Some multiple myomas	Rate of G2	Mean myoma size reported as main diameter (cm)	Notes
Ahdad-Yata 2015 [25]	France	Retrospective 5	71	38.4	No	7.0%	Classical slicing	Yes	59.0%	2.8
Arcaini 1994 [26]	Italy	Prospective 6	17	43.4	No	100%	Classical slicing	Yes	0	1.4	Provided missing information
Arnold 2016 [27]	Australia	Prospective 2	95	47.5	No	0	MyoSure®	Yes	17.9%	4.0
Bernard 2000 [28]	France	Retrospective 5	31	35	Yes	0	Hydromassage	Yes	51.6%	2.0	Provided missing information
Bigatti 2012 [29]	Italy	Randomized
Group A
		2	12	49.4	No	0	Bigatti Shaver®	No	50%	2.0	Provided missing information
Group B		0	3	47.7	No	0	Classical slicing	No	0	1.8
Bigatti 2014 [30]	Italy	Retrospective
Group A
Group B		3	76	47.6	Missing	0	Bigatti Shaver®	Yes	36.4%	2.2
		3	51	48	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	35.8%	2.5
Bizzarri 2015 [31]	Italy	Prospective
Group S		2	23	35	No	0	Classical slicing	No	38.7%	Missing	S: direct surgery
Group T		2	20	36.3	No	100%	Classical slicing	No	42.3%	Missing	T: triptorelin
Group L		0	11	36.8	No	0	Classical slicing	No	50.0%	Missing	L: letrozole
Group U		0	7	38.4	No	0	Classical slicing	No	40.0%	Missing	U: ulipristal
Blanc 1997 [32]	Francex	Prospective 4	196	41	Yes	18.9%	Classical slicing	Yes	4.1%	2.3
Bori 2011 [33]	Italy	Retrospective 3	80	41	Yes	1.0%	“Cold loop”	Yes	13.0%	3.0	Provided missing information
Bourdel 2010 [34]	France	Retrospective 3	72	45.6	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	12.5%	2.3
Camanni 2010 [35]	Italy	Prospective 4	33	41.3	Yes	9.1%	“Cold loop”	Yes	60.2%	5.5	Provided missing information
Campo 2005 [36]	Italy	Prospective
Group A		2	42	38.8	Yes	0%	Classical slicing	Yes	21.4%	2.9
Group B		2	38	39	Yes		Classical slicing	Yes	18.4%	3.0
Casadio 2011 [37]	Italy	Prospective 0	13	36.5	No	0	“Cold loop”	No	100%	Missing
Chelli 2006 [38]	Tunisia	Retrospective 3	125	40.2	Yes	Missing	Classical slicing	Yes	22.0%	2.9
Darwish 2003 [39]	Egypt	Prospective
Group A		2	65	21.7	No	0	Technique for deep portion	No	0	Missing
Group B		2	77	25.1	No	0	Classical slicing	No	0	Missing
De Blok 1995 [40]	The Netherlands	Retrospective 5	109	40	Missing	100%	Classical slicing	Missing	11.0%	1.1
Di Spiezio Sardo 2015 [41]	Italy	Prospective 6	72	38	Yes	69.4%	“Cold loop”	Yes	33.3%	4.1
Favilli [42] NCT01873378	Italy	Randomized									Raw data available
GnRH group		7	42	40.5	No	100%	“Cold loop”	No	57.1%	2.8
Controls		7	42	40.9	No	0	“Cold loop”	No	57.1%	2.5
Fernandez 2001 [84]	France	Retrospective 5	177	42.2	Missing	13%	Classical slicing	Yes	17.0%	2.9
Goldrath 1997 [43]	USA	Small series 2	3	31	Yes	0	YAG laser destruction	Yes	66.7%	Missing
Hallez 1995 [44]	France	Retrospective 6	274	45	Yes	Missing	Manual massage	Yes	34.7%	Missing
Hamerlynck 2011 [45]	The Netherlands	Retrospective 1	37	41.3	Missing	0	Truclear®	Missing	8.1%	2.0
Hamidouche 2015 [46]	France	Retrospective								G0, G1, G2 mean diameters in both arms
MyoSure		5	34	40.8	Yes	0	MyoSure®	Yes	41.7%
Bipolar use		5	49	40.2	Yes	0	Classical slicing	Yes	63.3%
Hart 1996 [47]	United Kingdom	Prospective 6	122	43.2	Yes	Missing	Classical slicing	Yes	33.0%	3.4
Imbesi 2008 [48]	Italy	Prospective 6	78	43.9	Yes	65.4%	“Cold loop”	Yes	26.9%	2.8
Ioannis 2006 [49]	Greece	Prospective 6	25	30.1	Missing	24.0%	“Cold loop”	No	16.0%	2.3
Jayakrishnan 2013 [50]	India	Prospective 1	37	32	Yes	5.4%	Classical slicing and laparoscopy	Missing	5.4%	Missing
Kim 1995 [51]	USA	Small series -2	6	42	No	33.3%	Classical slicing	Yes	16.7%	Missing
Korkmazer 2016 [52]	Turkey	Prospective 4	64	43.9	No	0	Technique for deep portion	No	28.1%	4.0
Lasmar 2004 [53]	Brazil	Retrospective 3	44	43.5	Missing	0	Technique for deep portion	Yes	34.1%	2.2	Provided missing information
Leone 2012 [54]	Italy	Prospective 6	159	44	Yes	50.9%	“Cold loop”	Yes	54.1%	Missing
Lin 2012 [55]	Japan	Prospective 2	1569	38.6	Missing	Not reported	Technique for deep portion	Yes	1.2%	Missing
Lin 1994 [56]	Japan	Prospective 4	25	38	No	100%	Technique for deep portion	No	16.0%	Missing
Litta 2014 [58]	Italy	Retrospective 7	104	35.7	No	19.2%	Technique for deep portion	Yes	32.7%	2.8
Litta 2003 [57]	Italy	Prospective 4	41	42.1	No	82.9%	Technique for deep portion	No	100%	3.2
Loffer I 2005 [59]	USA	Retrospective 1	20	63.3	Yes	0	Classical slicing Sometimes scissors	Yes	15.0%	2.4
Loffer II 2005 [60]	USA	Retrospective									EA: endometrial ablation
With EA		1	73	44	Yes	79.4%	Classical slicing	Yes	20.5%	3.0
Without EA		3	104	37.6	No	21.2%	Classical slicing	Yes	29.8%	3.4
Ludwin 2013 [61]	Poland	Prospective
Group 1		6	58	37.2	Yes	17.2%	Technique for deep portion	No	63.8%	2.4
Group 2		6	62	37.3	Yes	21.0%	Classical slicing	No	50.0%	2.4
Lure 1999 [62]	Spain	Retrospective 1	143	45	Yes	62.3%	Classical slicing	Yes	16.9%	Missing
Makris 2007 [63]	Greece	Prospective 6	59	34.6	Missing	100%	Classical slicing	No	16.9%	1.5
Malek-Mellouli 2012 [64]	Tunisia	Retrospective 1	105	41.4	Missing	Missing	Classical slicing	Yes	5.8%	3.1
Marziani 2005 [65]	Italy	Prospective 4	107	38	Missing	Not reported	Classical slicing	Yes	12.1%	Missing	Provided missing information
Mavrelos 2014 [66]	United Kingdom	Randomized									Provided missing information
Placebo		5	19	44.5	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	0	2.9
GnRh arm		5	21	38.8	Missing	100%	Classical slicing	Yes	0	3.1
Mazzon 2015 [17]	Italy	Retrospective 5	1215	42	Yes	60.4%	“Cold loop”	Yes	49.8%	2.0
Muñoz 2003 [67]	Spain	Retrospective 1	120	44.8	Yes	60.0%	Classical slicing	Yes	14.2%	Missing
Murakami 2008 [12]	Japan	Prospective 2	28	35.1	No	Missing	Technique for deep portion	Yes	78.6%	Missing	Provided missing information
Muzii 2010 [68]	Italy	Randomized
Group A		3	20	42	No	100%	Classical slicing	Yes	0	1.9
Group B		3	19	42	No	0	Classical slicing	Yes	0	2.0
Namazov 2015 [69]	Turkey	Retrospective 1	98	35	Missing	0	Classical slicing	No	4.1%	Missing
Polena 2007 [70]	France	Retrospective 3	235	47.9	Yes	3%	Classical slicing	Yes	70.0%	Missing
Romer 1997 [71]	Germany	Prospective 4	70	41	Missing	28.6%	Classical slicing	No	34.3%	Missing
Rovio 2009 [72]	Finland	Prospective 4	53	44.7	Yes	0	Classical slicing	Yes	0	2.1
Rovira Pampalona 2012 [73]	Spain	Retrospective 1	76	47	Yes	0	Truclear®	No	0	Missing
Sancho 2016 [74]	Spain	Retrospective
Ulipristal		1	26	44	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	50.0%	3.4
GnRh agonist		1	24	38	Missing	100%	Classical slicing	Yes	36.0%	3.4
Şendağ 2013 [75]	Turkey	Retrospective 3	40	35	Missing	Missing	Classical slicing	Yes	20.0%	2.2
Shokeir 2005 [76]	Egypt	Prospective 4	29	31.4	Missing	Missing	Classical slicing	No	0	1.3
Smets 1996 [77]	Belgium	Retrospective 1	366	33	Yes	100%	Classical slicing, morcellator, or YAG laser	Yes	23.8	Missing
Vercellini 1999 [10]	Italy	Prospective 7	108	37.3	Yes	82.4%	Technique for deep portion	Yes	22.2%	G0, G1, G2 mean diameters
Wang 2016 [78]	China	Retrospective 5	40	32.6	No	0	Technique for deep portion	No	100%	4.0
Wong 2013 [79]	China	Small series 2	5	41.6	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	20.0%	2.9
Wong 2014 [80]	China	Randomized
Vasopressin arm		1	20	41.6	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	15.0%	Missing
Placebo		1	19	42.9	Missing	0	Classical slicing	Yes	10.5%	Missing
Xia [81] 2005	China	Retrospective 3	877	44	Yes	32.2%	Classical slicing	Yes	32.2%	3.9
Yen [82] 2007	Taiwan	Small series 2	5	28	No	20.0%	Classical slicing	Yes	40.0%	2.8
Zayed [83] 2015	Egypt	Prospective 6	49	37.6	Missing	0	Technique for deep portion	Yes	46.9%	6.0

Studies are listed alphabetically on the first left column. The characteristics of the series are reported along with quality score given. The description of the techniques for treating the deep portion of the myoma is wider reported in Table 2.