Haijun Gao1, Tianping Li2, Dianxun Fu3, Jun Wei4. 1. Department of Radiology, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China. 2. General Department, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China. 4. Department of Ultrasound, Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children, Chongqing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To systematic review the safety and effectiveness between uterine artery embolization (UAE), surgery and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in the treatment of uterine fibroids. METHODS: The PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, and CNKI were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on comparing the safety and effectiveness of UAE, surgery and HIFU in the treatment of uterine fibroids from January 2000 to August 2019. After two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, network meta-analysis was performed by ADDIS 1.16.8 and Stata 14 software. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (22 articles) involving 3,646 patients were included. Compared with surgery, UAE and HIFU patients had higher quality of life (1-year follow-up) improvement, and UAE was higher than HIFU. Network meta-analysis show that patients treated with HIFU had the lowest incidence of major complications within 1 year, followed by UAE, and the highest surgery. Patients treated with HIFU and UAE have shorter hospital stays and quicker recovery time than surgery. The rate of further intervention after surgery treatment might be lower than that of UAE and HIFU. CONCLUSIONS: UAE has the highest quality of life improvement (1-year follow-up) for uterine fibroids. HIFU and UAE are safer with shorter hospital stays and quicker recovery time compared with surgery. However, both UAE and HIFU have the risks of re-treatment. However, limited by the number and quality of included studies, the above conclusions need to be verified through more high-quality studies. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To systematic review the safety and effectiveness between uterine artery embolization (UAE), surgery and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in the treatment of uterine fibroids. METHODS: The PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, and CNKI were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on comparing the safety and effectiveness of UAE, surgery and HIFU in the treatment of uterine fibroids from January 2000 to August 2019. After two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, network meta-analysis was performed by ADDIS 1.16.8 and Stata 14 software. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (22 articles) involving 3,646 patients were included. Compared with surgery, UAE and HIFU patients had higher quality of life (1-year follow-up) improvement, and UAE was higher than HIFU. Network meta-analysis show that patients treated with HIFU had the lowest incidence of major complications within 1 year, followed by UAE, and the highest surgery. Patients treated with HIFU and UAE have shorter hospital stays and quicker recovery time than surgery. The rate of further intervention after surgery treatment might be lower than that of UAE and HIFU. CONCLUSIONS: UAE has the highest quality of life improvement (1-year follow-up) for uterine fibroids. HIFU and UAE are safer with shorter hospital stays and quicker recovery time compared with surgery. However, both UAE and HIFU have the risks of re-treatment. However, limited by the number and quality of included studies, the above conclusions need to be verified through more high-quality studies. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Isabel Pinto; Paloma Chimeno; Alicia Romo; Laura Paúl; Javier Haya; Miguel A de la Cal; José Bajo Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Annefleur M de Bruijn; Willem M Ankum; Jim A Reekers; Erwin Birnie; Sanne M van der Kooij; Nicole A Volkers; Wouter J K Hehenkamp Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Richard D Edwards; Jonathan G Moss; Mary Ann Lumsden; Olivia Wu; Lilian S Murray; Sara Twaddle; Gordon D Murray Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Nathan J McDannold; Minna J So; Gina Hesley; Bobbie Gostout; Hyun S Kim; George A Holland; Dennis A Sarti; Kullervo Hynynen; Ferenc A Jolesz; Elizabeth A Stewart Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bernd Erber; Vincent Schwarze; Frederik Strobl; Alexander Burges; Sven Mahner; Sophia Samira Goller; Jan Rudolph; Jens Ricke; Bastian Oliver Sabel Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-08-04