Oliver Llewellyn1, Neeral R Patel2, Dermot Mallon2, Stephen D Quinn3, Mohamad Hamady2. 1. Department of Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK. Oliver.llewellyn1@nhs.net. 2. Department of Radiology, St Mary's Hospital, Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for giant fibroids (≥ 10 cm and/or uterine volume ≥ 700 CC) remains sparse. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of UAE outcomes for symptomatic giant versus non-giant fibroids. METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed. Research studies of UAE as an adjunct to surgery, and those not using peri-operative MRI were excluded. Primary outcomes were fibroid size and uterine volume reduction, procedure time, length of hospital stay, reinterventions, patient symptom improvement/satisfaction and complications. RESULTS: We identified four observational studies (839 patients; giant = 163, non-giant = 676). Both groups demonstrated reduction in fibroid size and uterine volume after UAE, with equivocal difference in uterine volume reduction (Mean difference (MD) - 0.3 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.8 to 3.1, p = 0.86) and greater reduction in non-giant dominant fibroid size (MD - 5.9 95% CI - 10.3 to - 1.5, p < 0.01). Giant fibroids were associated with 5.6 min longer mean operative time (MD 5.6 min 95% CI 2.6-8.6, p < 0.01) and 4.8 h longer mean hospital stay (MD 4.8 h 95% CI 1.1-8.6, p = 0.01). Patient symptoms/satisfaction outcomes were summarised, but too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Major complication and reintervention rates were low, with a statistically higher rate of major complications (Odds ratio (OR) 4.7 95% CI 1.5-14.6, p < 0.01) and reinterventions (OR 3.6 95% CI 1.7-7.5, p < 0.01) in giant fibroids. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows UAE is a safe and effective option to treat giant fibroids. However, the limited available data indicate a relatively higher risk of complications and reinterventions when compared with non-giant fibroids. Patients should be selected, counselled and managed accordingly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of retrospective cohort studies.
BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for giant fibroids (≥ 10 cm and/or uterine volume ≥ 700 CC) remains sparse. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of UAE outcomes for symptomatic giant versus non-giant fibroids. METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed. Research studies of UAE as an adjunct to surgery, and those not using peri-operative MRI were excluded. Primary outcomes were fibroid size and uterine volume reduction, procedure time, length of hospital stay, reinterventions, patient symptom improvement/satisfaction and complications. RESULTS: We identified four observational studies (839 patients; giant = 163, non-giant = 676). Both groups demonstrated reduction in fibroid size and uterine volume after UAE, with equivocal difference in uterine volume reduction (Mean difference (MD) - 0.3 95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.8 to 3.1, p = 0.86) and greater reduction in non-giant dominant fibroid size (MD - 5.9 95% CI - 10.3 to - 1.5, p < 0.01). Giant fibroids were associated with 5.6 min longer mean operative time (MD 5.6 min 95% CI 2.6-8.6, p < 0.01) and 4.8 h longer mean hospital stay (MD 4.8 h 95% CI 1.1-8.6, p = 0.01). Patient symptoms/satisfaction outcomes were summarised, but too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Major complication and reintervention rates were low, with a statistically higher rate of major complications (Odds ratio (OR) 4.7 95% CI 1.5-14.6, p < 0.01) and reinterventions (OR 3.6 95% CI 1.7-7.5, p < 0.01) in giant fibroids. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows UAE is a safe and effective option to treat giant fibroids. However, the limited available data indicate a relatively higher risk of complications and reinterventions when compared with non-giant fibroids. Patients should be selected, counselled and managed accordingly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of retrospective cohort studies.