Lu Liu1, Tianfu Wang2, Baiying Lei2. 1. National-Regional Key Technology Engineering Laboratory for Medical Ultrasound, Guangdong Key Laboratory for Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518060, China. 1318245760@qq.com. 2. National-Regional Key Technology Engineering Laboratory for Medical Ultrasound, Guangdong Key Laboratory for Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518060, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the treatment success and safety of ultrasound- and MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) with surgery for treating symptomatic uterine fibroids. METHODS: We searched studies comparing HIFU with surgery for fibroids in different databases from January 2000 to July 2020. The mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for different outcome parameters was synthesized. RESULTS: We included 10 studies involving 4450 women. Compared with the surgery group, the decrease in uterine fibroid severity score at 6- and 12-month follow-up was higher in the HIFU group (MD - 4.16, 95% CI - 7.39 to - 0.94, and MD - 2.44, 95% CI - 3.67 to - 1.20, p < 0.05). The increase in quality-of-life (QoL) score at 6- and 12-month follow-up was higher in the HIFU group (MD 2.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, and MD 2.34, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.85, p < 0.05). The duration of hospital stay and the time to return to work was shorter in the HIFU group (MD - 3.41 days, 95% CI - 5.11 to - 1.70, and MD - 11.61 days, 95% CI - 19.73 to - 3.50, p < 0.05). The incidence of significant complications was lower in the HIFU group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, p < 0.05). The differences in the outcomes of adverse events, symptom recurrence, re-intervention, and pregnancy were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HIFU is superior to surgery in terms of symptomatic relief, improvement in QoL, recovery, and significant complications. However, HIFU showed comparable effects to surgery regarding the incidence of adverse events, symptom recurrence, re-intervention, and pregnancy. KEY POINTS: • HIFU ablation is superior to surgery in terms of symptomatic relief, improvement in QoL, recovery, and significant complications. • HIFU has comparable effects to surgery in terms of symptom recurrence rate, re-intervention rate, and pregnancy rate, indicating that HIFU is a promising non-invasive therapy that seems not to raise the risk of recurrence and re-intervention or deteriorate fertility compared to surgical approaches in women with fibroids. • There is still a lack of good-quality comparative data and further randomized studies are necessary to provide sufficient and reliable data, especially on re-intervention rate and pregnancy outcome.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the treatment success and safety of ultrasound- and MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) with surgery for treating symptomatic uterine fibroids. METHODS: We searched studies comparing HIFU with surgery for fibroids in different databases from January 2000 to July 2020. The mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for different outcome parameters was synthesized. RESULTS: We included 10 studies involving 4450 women. Compared with the surgery group, the decrease in uterine fibroid severity score at 6- and 12-month follow-up was higher in the HIFU group (MD - 4.16, 95% CI - 7.39 to - 0.94, and MD - 2.44, 95% CI - 3.67 to - 1.20, p < 0.05). The increase in quality-of-life (QoL) score at 6- and 12-month follow-up was higher in the HIFU group (MD 2.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, and MD 2.34, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.85, p < 0.05). The duration of hospital stay and the time to return to work was shorter in the HIFU group (MD - 3.41 days, 95% CI - 5.11 to - 1.70, and MD - 11.61 days, 95% CI - 19.73 to - 3.50, p < 0.05). The incidence of significant complications was lower in the HIFU group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, p < 0.05). The differences in the outcomes of adverse events, symptom recurrence, re-intervention, and pregnancy were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HIFU is superior to surgery in terms of symptomatic relief, improvement in QoL, recovery, and significant complications. However, HIFU showed comparable effects to surgery regarding the incidence of adverse events, symptom recurrence, re-intervention, and pregnancy. KEY POINTS: • HIFU ablation is superior to surgery in terms of symptomatic relief, improvement in QoL, recovery, and significant complications. • HIFU has comparable effects to surgery in terms of symptom recurrence rate, re-intervention rate, and pregnancy rate, indicating that HIFU is a promising non-invasive therapy that seems not to raise the risk of recurrence and re-intervention or deteriorate fertility compared to surgical approaches in women with fibroids. • There is still a lack of good-quality comparative data and further randomized studies are necessary to provide sufficient and reliable data, especially on re-intervention rate and pregnancy outcome.