Evelien M Sandberg1, Fokkedien H M P Tummers2, Sarah L Cohen3, Lukas van den Haak2, Olaf M Dekkers4, Frank Willem Jansen5. 1. Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: e.m.sandberg@lumc.nl. 2. Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare uterine-sparing treatment options for fibroids in terms of reintervention risk and quality of life. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women with uterine fibroids undergoing a uterine-sparing intervention. INTERVENTIONS(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): 1) Reintervention risk after uterine-sparing treatment for fibroids after 12, 36, and 60 months; and 2) quality of life outcomes, based on validated questionnaires. Two separate analyses were performed for the procedures that used an abdominal approach (myomectomy, uterine artery embolization [UAE], artery ligation, high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU], laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and for the procedures managing intracavitary fibroids (hysteroscopic approach, including hysteroscopic myomectomy and hysteroscopic RFA). RESULT(S): There were 85 articles included for analysis, representing 17,789 women. Stratified by treatment options, reintervention risk after 60 months was 12.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2%-21.2%) for myomectomy, 14.4% (95% CI 9.8%-19.6%) for UAE, 53.9% (95% CI 47.2%-60.4%) for HIFU, and 7% (95% CI 4.8%-9.5%) for hysteroscopy. For the other treatment options, no studies were available at 60 months. For quality of life outcomes, symptoms improved after treatment for all options. The HIFU procedure had the least favorable outcomes. CONCLUSION(S): Despite the substantial heterogeneity of the study population, this meta-analysis provides valuable information on relative treatment efficacy of various uterine-sparing interventions for fibroids, which is relevant when counseling patients in daily practice. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that long-term data, particularly for the newest uterine-sparing interventions, are urgently needed.
OBJECTIVES: To compare uterine-sparing treatment options for fibroids in terms of reintervention risk and quality of life. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women with uterine fibroids undergoing a uterine-sparing intervention. INTERVENTIONS(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): 1) Reintervention risk after uterine-sparing treatment for fibroids after 12, 36, and 60 months; and 2) quality of life outcomes, based on validated questionnaires. Two separate analyses were performed for the procedures that used an abdominal approach (myomectomy, uterine artery embolization [UAE], artery ligation, high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU], laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and for the procedures managing intracavitary fibroids (hysteroscopic approach, including hysteroscopic myomectomy and hysteroscopic RFA). RESULT(S): There were 85 articles included for analysis, representing 17,789 women. Stratified by treatment options, reintervention risk after 60 months was 12.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2%-21.2%) for myomectomy, 14.4% (95% CI 9.8%-19.6%) for UAE, 53.9% (95% CI 47.2%-60.4%) for HIFU, and 7% (95% CI 4.8%-9.5%) for hysteroscopy. For the other treatment options, no studies were available at 60 months. For quality of life outcomes, symptoms improved after treatment for all options. The HIFU procedure had the least favorable outcomes. CONCLUSION(S): Despite the substantial heterogeneity of the study population, this meta-analysis provides valuable information on relative treatment efficacy of various uterine-sparing interventions for fibroids, which is relevant when counseling patients in daily practice. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that long-term data, particularly for the newest uterine-sparing interventions, are urgently needed.
Authors: Jane Daniels; Lee J Middleton; Versha Cheed; William McKinnon; Dikshyanta Rana; Fusun Sirkeci; Isaac Manyonda; Anna-Maria Belli; Mary Ann Lumsden; Jonathan Moss; Olivia Wu; Klim McPherson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 4.106
Authors: Inez M Verpalen; Jolien P de Boer; Marlot Linstra; Roelien L I Pol; Ingrid M Nijholt; Chrit T W Moonen; Lambertus W Bartels; Arie Franx; Martijn F Boomsma; Manon N G Braat Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Luz Angela Torres-de la Roche; Sarah Rafiq; Rajesh Devassy; Hugo Christian Verhoeven; Sven Becker; Rudy Leon De Wilde Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 4.241