Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Fertil Steril. 2018 Apr;109(4):698-707.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.11.033.
To compare uterine-sparing treatment options for fibroids in terms of reintervention risk and quality of life.
Systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines.
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.
比较子宫肌瘤保宫治疗方案的再干预风险和生活质量。
根据 PRISMA 指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
不适用。
接受保宫治疗的子宫肌瘤患者。
不适用。
1)保宫治疗后 12、36 和 60 个月子宫肌瘤再干预风险;2)基于有效问卷的生活质量结果。分别对采用腹部途径的手术(子宫肌瘤切除术、子宫动脉栓塞术 [UAE]、动脉结扎术、高强度聚焦超声 [HIFU]、腹腔镜射频消融术 [RFA])和腔内肌瘤处理方法(宫腔镜方法,包括宫腔镜子宫肌瘤切除术和宫腔镜 RFA)进行了两次分析。
共纳入 85 篇文章进行分析,共涉及 17789 名女性。分层治疗方案,60 个月后再干预风险为子宫肌瘤切除术 12.2%(95%可信区间 [CI] 5.2%-21.2%)、UAE 为 14.4%(95% CI 9.8%-19.6%)、HIFU 为 53.9%(95% CI 47.2%-60.4%)和宫腔镜为 7%(95% CI 4.8%-9.5%)。对于其他治疗方案,60 个月时没有研究可用。对于生活质量结果,所有方案治疗后症状均改善。HIFU 治疗的结果最差。
尽管研究人群存在很大的异质性,但这项荟萃分析提供了有关各种保宫治疗子宫肌瘤方法的相对治疗效果的有价值信息,这在日常实践中为患者提供咨询时是相关的。此外,本研究表明,迫切需要长期数据,特别是对最新的保宫治疗干预措施。