International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2015
High intensity focused ultrasound ablation for submucosal fibroids: A comparison between type I and type II.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Xie Bin, Zhang Cai, Xiong Chunyan, He Jia, Huang Guohua, Zhang Lian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for type I and type II submucosal fibroids.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2011 to October 2013, 55 patients with submucosal fibroids were enrolled in this study. Based on submucosal fibroid classification, 27 patients were grouped as type I submucosal fibroids, and 28 patients were classified as type II submucosal fibroids. All patients received HIFU treatment and completed 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Adverse effects were recorded.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). Using similar sonication power, sonication time, and acoustic energy, the non-perfused volume (NPV) ratio was 83.0 ± 17.3% in the type I group, and 92.0 ± 9.5% in the type II group. All the patients tolerated the procedure well, and no serious adverse events occurred. During the follow-up intervals, the treated fibroids shrank and fibroid-related symptoms were relieved. No other reinterventional procedures were performed during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: Based on our results with a small number of subjects, HIFU is suitable for both type I and type II submucosal fibroids. It seems that type II submucosal fibroids are more sensitive to HIFU ablation. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times to investigate the long-term results, including long-term symptom relief, pregnancy outcomes, and the recurrence rate as well as the reintervention rate are needed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2011 to October 2013, 55 patients with submucosal fibroids were enrolled in this study. Based on submucosal fibroid classification, 27 patients were grouped as type I submucosal fibroids, and 28 patients were classified as type II submucosal fibroids. All patients received HIFU treatment and completed 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Adverse effects were recorded.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.05). Using similar sonication power, sonication time, and acoustic energy, the non-perfused volume (NPV) ratio was 83.0 ± 17.3% in the type I group, and 92.0 ± 9.5% in the type II group. All the patients tolerated the procedure well, and no serious adverse events occurred. During the follow-up intervals, the treated fibroids shrank and fibroid-related symptoms were relieved. No other reinterventional procedures were performed during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: Based on our results with a small number of subjects, HIFU is suitable for both type I and type II submucosal fibroids. It seems that type II submucosal fibroids are more sensitive to HIFU ablation. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times to investigate the long-term results, including long-term symptom relief, pregnancy outcomes, and the recurrence rate as well as the reintervention rate are needed.