Bin Xie1, Cai Zhang2,3, Chunyan Xiong2, Jia He3, Guohua Huang2,3, Lian Zhang2. 1. a Department of Ultrasound , Huanggang Central Hospital , Huanggang City , Hubei , China . 2. b State Key Laboratory of Ultrasound Engineering in Medicine , Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing , China , and. 3. c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Suining Central Hospital , Sichuan , China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for type I and type II submucosal fibroids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2011 to October 2013, 55 patients with submucosal fibroids were enrolled in this study. Based on submucosal fibroid classification, 27 patients were grouped as type I submucosal fibroids, and 28 patients were classified as type II submucosal fibroids. All patients received HIFU treatment and completed 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). Using similar sonication power, sonication time, and acoustic energy, the non-perfused volume (NPV) ratio was 83.0 ± 17.3% in the type I group, and 92.0 ± 9.5% in the type II group. All the patients tolerated the procedure well, and no serious adverse events occurred. During the follow-up intervals, the treated fibroids shrank and fibroid-related symptoms were relieved. No other reinterventional procedures were performed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Based on our results with a small number of subjects, HIFU is suitable for both type I and type II submucosal fibroids. It seems that type II submucosal fibroids are more sensitive to HIFU ablation. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times to investigate the long-term results, including long-term symptom relief, pregnancy outcomes, and the recurrence rate as well as the reintervention rate are needed.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for type I and type II submucosal fibroids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2011 to October 2013, 55 patients with submucosal fibroids were enrolled in this study. Based on submucosal fibroid classification, 27 patients were grouped as type I submucosal fibroids, and 28 patients were classified as type II submucosal fibroids. All patients received HIFU treatment and completed 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). Using similar sonication power, sonication time, and acoustic energy, the non-perfused volume (NPV) ratio was 83.0 ± 17.3% in the type I group, and 92.0 ± 9.5% in the type II group. All the patients tolerated the procedure well, and no serious adverse events occurred. During the follow-up intervals, the treated fibroids shrank and fibroid-related symptoms were relieved. No other reinterventional procedures were performed during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Based on our results with a small number of subjects, HIFU is suitable for both type I and type II submucosal fibroids. It seems that type II submucosal fibroids are more sensitive to HIFU ablation. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times to investigate the long-term results, including long-term symptom relief, pregnancy outcomes, and the recurrence rate as well as the reintervention rate are needed.