OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GnRH-α pre-treatment with HIFU ablation for diffuse adenomyosis. METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2016, 61 patients were divided into two groups. Twenty-three patients with larger uteri received pre-treatment with GnRH-α and were then subjected to HIFU, and 38 patients underwent HIFU alone. The technical parameters included treatment time, sonication time, average sonication power, treatment intensity, total energy, non-perfusion volume (NPV) and NPV ratio. Intra-, post-procedural complaints, the relief rate of dysmenorrhoea and clinical effectiveness were followed up. RESULTS: Although the lesion volume in the HIFU + GnRH group was larger than in the HIFU-only group, higher NPV, NPVR%, treatment intensity and total energy with shorter treatment and sonication times in the HIFU + GnRH group were obtained than that in the HIFU-only group. Significant differences were evident for NPV, NPVR%, average power, and total intensity energy (p < 0.05), but not for other parameters between the two groups (p > 0.05). Although no differences in the intra-, post-procedural VAS scores, in the adverse effects and in the relief rate or clinical effectiveness were apparent between the two groups (p > 0.05), the relief rate was better in the HIFU + GnRH group than that in the HIFU group from 6 to 12 months after treatment. Self-comparison of differences occurred in the two groups before and after treatment (p < 0.05) and were between the two groups after only 6 months (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of HIFU with GnRH-α is more effective than HIFU alone for ablation of diffuse adenomyosis. Moreover, the GnRH-α pre-treatment with HIFU is safe.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GnRH-α pre-treatment with HIFU ablation for diffuse adenomyosis. METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2016, 61 patients were divided into two groups. Twenty-three patients with larger uteri received pre-treatment with GnRH-α and were then subjected to HIFU, and 38 patients underwent HIFU alone. The technical parameters included treatment time, sonication time, average sonication power, treatment intensity, total energy, non-perfusion volume (NPV) and NPV ratio. Intra-, post-procedural complaints, the relief rate of dysmenorrhoea and clinical effectiveness were followed up. RESULTS: Although the lesion volume in the HIFU + GnRH group was larger than in the HIFU-only group, higher NPV, NPVR%, treatment intensity and total energy with shorter treatment and sonication times in the HIFU + GnRH group were obtained than that in the HIFU-only group. Significant differences were evident for NPV, NPVR%, average power, and total intensity energy (p < 0.05), but not for other parameters between the two groups (p > 0.05). Although no differences in the intra-, post-procedural VAS scores, in the adverse effects and in the relief rate or clinical effectiveness were apparent between the two groups (p > 0.05), the relief rate was better in the HIFU + GnRH group than that in the HIFU group from 6 to 12 months after treatment. Self-comparison of differences occurred in the two groups before and after treatment (p < 0.05) and were between the two groups after only 6 months (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of HIFU with GnRH-α is more effective than HIFU alone for ablation of diffuse adenomyosis. Moreover, the GnRH-α pre-treatment with HIFU is safe.