Conservative Treatment Of Uterine Myomas: A Network Meta-analysis Of Randomized Controlled Studies.: NMA For Uterine Myomas Conservative Treatment.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Mattia Dominoni, Barbara Gardella, Andrea Gritti, Marianna Francesca Pasquali, Arsenio Spinillo
{"title":"Conservative Treatment Of Uterine Myomas: A Network Meta-analysis Of Randomized Controlled Studies.: NMA For Uterine Myomas Conservative Treatment.","authors":"Mattia Dominoni, Barbara Gardella, Andrea Gritti, Marianna Francesca Pasquali, Arsenio Spinillo","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of uterine artery embolization (UAE), focused ultrasound (HIFU), radiofrequency ablation (RFT), and laparoscopic/laparotomic surgery in the conservative treatment of uterine fibroids DATA SOURCES: The research was performed via electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, using the PRISMA standards.</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>The network included 10 randomized trials between 2000 and 2024 and 1002 randomized subjects.</p><p><strong>Tabulation: </strong>The Network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out with subroutine netmeta on R. The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was computed by Bayesian NMA.</p><p><strong>Integrations and results: </strong>Integrations and Results: Incidences of reintervention per 100 person/year of follow-up were 4.13 (range 0 to 19.4), 16.1 (6.2 to 32.8), 14.3 (0 to 15.1) and 6 (4.3 to 6.7) for myomectomy, UAE, HIFU and RFT, respectively. The incidence rate ratios compared to myomectomy were 2.45 (95% CI = 1.38-4.37), 5.23 (95% CI = 1.59,17.3), and 4.59 (95% CI= 0.77-27.3, p=0.09) for UAE, HIFU and RFT, respectively. RTF had the highest (SUCRA=1.25% and 3%) while myomectomy had the lowest (SUCRA=98% and 95%) risk of reintervention or hysterectomy during follow-up (median 12 months, range 3-24). The risk of major complications was significantly lower after UAE (OR=0.38,95%CI=0.17-0.85) than myomectomy. The procedure with the lowest likelihood of major complications was HIFU (SUCRA=81.5%). Finally, in the evaluation of QoL at follow-up visits 60 there were no differences between the treatments studied, although the model was highly heterogeneous and inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In analysis of randomized trials, surgical myomectomy carried the least risk of reintervention and subsequent hysterectomy during a relatively short follow up period. HIFU was the method with the lowest risk of major complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of uterine artery embolization (UAE), focused ultrasound (HIFU), radiofrequency ablation (RFT), and laparoscopic/laparotomic surgery in the conservative treatment of uterine fibroids DATA SOURCES: The research was performed via electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, using the PRISMA standards.

Methods of study selection: The network included 10 randomized trials between 2000 and 2024 and 1002 randomized subjects.

Tabulation: The Network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out with subroutine netmeta on R. The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was computed by Bayesian NMA.

Integrations and results: Integrations and Results: Incidences of reintervention per 100 person/year of follow-up were 4.13 (range 0 to 19.4), 16.1 (6.2 to 32.8), 14.3 (0 to 15.1) and 6 (4.3 to 6.7) for myomectomy, UAE, HIFU and RFT, respectively. The incidence rate ratios compared to myomectomy were 2.45 (95% CI = 1.38-4.37), 5.23 (95% CI = 1.59,17.3), and 4.59 (95% CI= 0.77-27.3, p=0.09) for UAE, HIFU and RFT, respectively. RTF had the highest (SUCRA=1.25% and 3%) while myomectomy had the lowest (SUCRA=98% and 95%) risk of reintervention or hysterectomy during follow-up (median 12 months, range 3-24). The risk of major complications was significantly lower after UAE (OR=0.38,95%CI=0.17-0.85) than myomectomy. The procedure with the lowest likelihood of major complications was HIFU (SUCRA=81.5%). Finally, in the evaluation of QoL at follow-up visits 60 there were no differences between the treatments studied, although the model was highly heterogeneous and inconsistent.

Conclusion: In analysis of randomized trials, surgical myomectomy carried the least risk of reintervention and subsequent hysterectomy during a relatively short follow up period. HIFU was the method with the lowest risk of major complications.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信