Systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence in uterine artery embolization vs myomectomy for symptomatic uterine fibroids

Abstract

Abstract This review compares the efficacy of Uterine Artery Embolization (UAE) and Myomectomy (MYO) in managing symptomatic Uterine Fibroids (UFs) in women who do not want hysterectomy. A meta-analysis was performed on all available studies that evaluated the relative benefits and harms of MYO and UEA for the management of patients suffering from UFs. Outcomes evaluated reintervention, UFs scores for quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity, and other complications. To determine mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), a random or fixed-effects model was utilized. A meta-analysis of 13 studies (9 observational and 4 randomized controlled trials) was conducted. The results indicated that UAE had a higher reintervention rate (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.62–2.10; P < 0.01; I2 = 39%), hysterectomy rate (OR 4.04; 95% CI 3.45–4.72; P < 0.01; I2 = 59%), and symptom-severity score (OR − 4.02; 95% CI 0.82, 7.22; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%) compared to MYO at a four-year follow-up. However, UAE was associated with a lower rate of early complications (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.20–0.95; P = 0.04; I2 = 25%), and readmission rate (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01–1.33; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%) compared to MYO. Furthermore, both procedures had comparable improvement in pregnancy rates and abnormal uterine bleeding. In conclusion, UAE and MYO are effective in treating symptomatic UFs but they have different outcomes. The decision on which procedure to choose should be made based on individual preferences and the physician’s expertise.

Keywords

• Uterine artery embolization
• Myomectomy
• Symptomatic uterine fibroids
• Meta-analysis