Uterine Artery Occlusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Myomas

Abstract

Both laparoscopic occlusion and superselective embolization of the uterine artery for symptomatic uterine leiomyomata improved clinical symptoms in the majority of patients.

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the effectiveness and safety of uterine artery occlusion by laparoscopy versus embolization as a treatment modality for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Methods:

Ninety-six premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomata were studied. None of them desired further pregnancy. They were randomized to treatment either by laparoscopic occlusion (group 1) or by radiologic embolization of uterine arteries (group 2). The primary outcome measure was patient satisfaction as regards menstrual blood loss compared with pretreatment loss. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative pain, complications, secondary interventions, and failures.

Results:

Ninety women were followed for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after both procedures. The primary outcome was comparable between the 2 groups (86.7% after laparoscopic occlusion versus 88.8% after embolization, with no statistically significant difference). After 12 months of follow-up, more patients resumed heavy periods in the uterine artery occlusion group [4/45 patients, 8.8% in occlusion group compared with 3/45 (6.6%) in embolization group, P=0.044].

Conclusion:

Both laparoscopic occlusion and superselective embolization of uterine arteries improved clinical symptoms in the majority of patients. At 12-month follow-up, embolization might be more effective.