Uterine Artery Embolization Compared with High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Myomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the clinical effects of uterine artery embolization (UAE) with those of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation for the treatment of symptomatic uterine myomas.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from January 2000 to August 2020. Related articles and relevant references of the included studies were also searched.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently performed the data selection. We included comparative studies that compared the clinical outcomes of UAE with those of HIFU ablation in women with myomas.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We assessed the study quality using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for evaluating the risk of bias. Two independent researchers performed the article selection according to the screening criteria and rated the quality of evidence for each article. We calculated pooled mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. The systematic review registration number is CRD42020199630 on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. A total of 7 articles (5 trials), involving 4592 women with symptomatic uterine myomas, were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the HIFU ablation group, the decrease in "uterine fibroid symptom" scores as well as the increase in quality-of-life scores at the time of follow-up were higher in the UAE group, with overall mean difference 19.54 (95% CI, 15.21-23.87; p <.001) and 15.72 (95% CI, 8.30-23.13; p <.001), respectively. The women in the UAE group had a significantly lower reintervention rate (RR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.42; p <.001). The women undergoing UAE had a significantly lower pregnancy rate than those undergoing HIFU ablation (RR 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.45; p = .006). The difference in the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (p = .53).

CONCLUSION

Compared with HIFU ablation, UAE provided more significant alleviation of symptoms and improvement in quality of life, lower postoperative reintervention rate, and lower pregnancy rate for women with uterine myomas. However, we cannot conclude that HIFU ablation is more favorable for desired pregnancy than UAE because of the confounding factors.