International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2021
The efficacy and safety of MR-HIFU and US-HIFU in treating uterine fibroids with the volume <300 cm3: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yu Liang, Zhu Shu, Zhang Huiyuan, Wang Anqi, Sun Guodong, Liang JiaLe, Wang Xiuli
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a promising and non-invasive therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Currently, the main image-guided methods for HIFU include magnetic resonance-guided (MR-HIFU) and ultrasound-guided (US-HIFU). However, there are few comparative studies on the therapeutic efficacy and safety of MR-HIFU and US-HIFU in treating symptomatic uterine fibroids with a volume <300 cm3.
OBJECTIVE: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR-HIFU and US-HIFU in treating symptomatic uterine fibroids with a volume <300 cm3.
METHODS: We searched relevant literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library CNKI from inception until 2021. The mean value, the proportion, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured by random-effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.
RESULTS: 48 studies met our inclusion criteria-28 describing MR-HIFU and 20 describing US-HIFU. The mean non-perfused volume rate (NPVR) was 81.07% in the US-HIFU group and 58.92% in the MR-HIFU group, respectively. The mean volume reduction rates at month-3, month-6, and month-12 were 42.42, 58.72, and 65.55% in the US-HIFU group, while 34.79, 37.39, and 36.44% in the MR-HIFU group. The incidence of post-operative abdominal pain and abnormal vaginal discharge in the US-HIFU group was lower than that of MRI-HIFU. However, post-operative skin burn and sciatic nerve pain were more common in the US-HIFU group compared with MRI-HIFU. The one-year reintervention rate after MR-HIFU was 13.4%, which was higher than 5.2% in the US-HIFU group.
CONCLUSION: US-HIFU may show better efficiency and safety than MR-HIFU in treating symptomatic fibroids with a volume <300 cm3.
OBJECTIVE: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR-HIFU and US-HIFU in treating symptomatic uterine fibroids with a volume <300 cm3.
METHODS: We searched relevant literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library CNKI from inception until 2021. The mean value, the proportion, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured by random-effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.
RESULTS: 48 studies met our inclusion criteria-28 describing MR-HIFU and 20 describing US-HIFU. The mean non-perfused volume rate (NPVR) was 81.07% in the US-HIFU group and 58.92% in the MR-HIFU group, respectively. The mean volume reduction rates at month-3, month-6, and month-12 were 42.42, 58.72, and 65.55% in the US-HIFU group, while 34.79, 37.39, and 36.44% in the MR-HIFU group. The incidence of post-operative abdominal pain and abnormal vaginal discharge in the US-HIFU group was lower than that of MRI-HIFU. However, post-operative skin burn and sciatic nerve pain were more common in the US-HIFU group compared with MRI-HIFU. The one-year reintervention rate after MR-HIFU was 13.4%, which was higher than 5.2% in the US-HIFU group.
CONCLUSION: US-HIFU may show better efficiency and safety than MR-HIFU in treating symptomatic fibroids with a volume <300 cm3.