Endometrial cancer (EC) in young women tends to be early-stage and low-grade; therefore, such cases have good prognoses. Fertility-sparing treatment with progestin is a potential alternative to definitive treatment (i.e., total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic washing, and/or lymphadenectomy) for selected patients. However, no evidence-based consensus or guidelines yet exist, and this topic is subject to much debate. Generally, the ideal candidates for fertility-sparing treatment have been suggested to be young women with grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma confined to the endometrium. Magnetic resonance imaging should be performed to rule out myometrial invasion and extrauterine disease before initiating fertility-sparing treatment. Although various fertility-sparing treatment methods exist, including the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system, metformin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, photodynamic therapy, and hysteroscopic resection, the most common method is high-dose oral progestin (medroxyprogesterone acetate at 500–600 mg daily or megestrol acetate at 160 mg daily). During treatment, re-evaluation of the endometrium with dilation and curettage at 3 months is recommended. Although no consensus exists regarding the ideal duration of maintenance treatment after achieving regression, it is reasonable to consider maintaining the progestin therapy until pregnancy with individualization. According to the literature, the ovarian stimulation drugs used for fertility treatments appear safe. Hysterectomy should be performed after childbearing, and hysterectomy without oophorectomy can also be considered for young women. The available evidence suggests that fertility-sparing treatment is effective and does not appear to worsen the prognosis. If an eligible patient strongly desires fertility despite the risk of recurrence, the clinician should consider fertility-sparing treatment with close follow-up.

Choi SH, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2023 Mar;64(3):204-212. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.0278

Kim SJ, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2022 May;63(5):446-451. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.63.5.446

Background: To introduce a hybrid robotic single‐site myomectomy (H‐RSSM) technique that includes laparoscopic single‐site myoma excision followed by robotic single‐site suture and compare its surgical outcomes with those of conventional robotic single‐site myomectomy (RSSM) using the da Vinci Si surgical system.Methods: Medical records of 89 consecutive women who underwent H‐RSSM and 131 consecutive women who underwent RSSM were retrospectively reviewed. Patients characteristics and surgical outcomes were evaluated and compared between two groups.Results: The H‐RSSM group had a significantly reduced operation time (98.7 ± 31.7 vs 141.4 ± 54.4 min, P < .001) and lower estimated blood loss (131.5 ± 78.1 vs 212.3 ± 189.8 mL, P < .001). Peritoneal adhesions were reported significantly more in the H‐RSSM group than in the RSSM group (27.0% vs 9.2%, P < .001).Conclusion: H‐RSSM was found to be associated with reduced operative time and lower estimated blood loss. However, further prospective studies are needed to clarify these advantages.

Background: There is still concern regarding postoperative adhesion formation and adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes caused by barbed suture (BS) after myomectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative adhesion and pregnancy outcomes between conventional suture (CS) and BS after minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM) by robotic myomectomy (RM) or laparoscopic myomectomy (LM). Methods: The medical records of 94 women who had undergone MIM with CS and 97 who had undergone MIM with BS and achieved pregnancy were reviewed. Postoperative adhesion was evaluated following cesarean section. Results: The number of removed myomas was greater (5.3 ± 4.6 vs. 3.5 ± 3.1, p = 0.001) and the size of the largest myoma was larger (7.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 cm, p = 0.001) in the BS group relative to the CS group. A total of 98.9% of patients in the CS group and 45.4% in the BS group had undergone LM (p < 0.001), while the others underwent RM. There was no significant difference in the presence of postoperative adhesion at cesarean section between the BS and CS groups (45.5 vs. 43.7%, p = 0.095). Additionally, there were no intergroup differences in pregnancy complications such as preterm labor, placenta previa, accrete or abruption. Note also that in our logistic regression analysis, the suture type (BS or CS) was excluded from the independent risk factors regarding postoperative adhesion formation. Conclusions: Our data indicated that the incidence of postoperative adhesion after MIM with BS was similar when compared with CS. Also it seems that the suture type does not have a significant effect on pregnancy outcomes.