Obstetrics & Gynaecology Department, Leigh Infirmary, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Leigh, UK.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Sep;93(9):858-67. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12441. Epub 2014 Jul 23.
To evaluate the effectiveness of uterine-sparing interventions for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who wish to preserve their uterus.
Systematic review and indirect comparison meta-analysis.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference proceedings, trial registers and reference lists were searched up to October 2013 for randomized controlled trials.
Outcome measures were patient satisfaction, re-intervention and complications rates, reproductive outcomes, and hospitalization and recovery times.
Five trials, involving 436 women were included; two compared uterine artery embolization with myomectomy and three compared uterine artery embolization with laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion. Indirect treatment comparison showed that myomectomy and uterine artery embolization resulted in higher rates of patient satisfaction (odds ratio 2.56, 95% credible interval 0.56-11.75 and 2.7, 95% credible interval 1.1-7.14, respectively) and lower rates of clinical failure (odds ratio 0.29, 95% credible interval 0.06-1.46 and 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.13-0.93, respectively) than laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion. Myomectomy resulted in lower re-intervention rate than uterine artery embolization (odds ratio 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.02-0.27) and laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion (odds ratio 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.01-0.37) even though the latter techniques had an advantage over myomectomy because of shorter hospitalization and quicker recovery. There was no evidence of difference between the three techniques in ovarian failure and complications rates. The evidence for reproductive outcomes is poor.
Our study's results suggest that laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion is less effective than uterine artery embolization and myomectomy in treatment of symptomatic fibroids. The choice between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy should be based on individuals' expectations and fully informed discussion.
评估保留子宫的症状性子宫肌瘤妇女采用子宫保留干预措施的效果。
系统评价和间接比较荟萃分析。
检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL、会议记录和参考文献,以获取截至 2013 年 10 月的随机对照试验。
观察指标为患者满意度、再干预率和并发症发生率、生殖结局以及住院和康复时间。
共纳入 5 项试验,涉及 436 例患者;其中 2 项研究比较了子宫动脉栓塞术与子宫肌瘤切除术,3 项研究比较了子宫动脉栓塞术与腹腔镜子宫动脉阻断术。间接治疗比较显示,子宫肌瘤切除术和子宫动脉栓塞术的患者满意度更高(比值比 2.56,95%可信区间 0.56-11.75 和 2.7,95%可信区间 1.1-7.14),临床失败率更低(比值比 0.29,95%可信区间 0.06-1.46 和 0.37,95%可信区间 0.13-0.93),而腹腔镜子宫动脉阻断术的患者满意度较低。与子宫动脉栓塞术(比值比 0.08,95%可信区间 0.02-0.27)和腹腔镜子宫动脉阻断术(比值比 0.08,95%可信区间 0.01-0.37)相比,子宫肌瘤切除术的再干预率较低,尽管后两种方法因住院时间较短和康复较快而具有优势。三种技术在卵巢衰竭和并发症发生率方面均无差异。生殖结局的证据不足。
我们的研究结果表明,腹腔镜子宫动脉阻断术在治疗症状性子宫肌瘤方面不如子宫动脉栓塞术和子宫肌瘤切除术有效。子宫动脉栓塞术和子宫肌瘤切除术的选择应基于个体的期望和充分知情的讨论。