Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uterine Artery Embolisation for Women with Giant Versus Non-giant Uterine Fibroids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Arterial Interventions
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Evidence supporting uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for giant fibroids (≥ 10 cm and/or uterine volume ≥ 700 CC) remains sparse. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of UAE outcomes for symptomatic giant versus non-giant fibroids.

Methods

The literature was systematically reviewed. Research studies of UAE as an adjunct to surgery, and those not using peri-operative MRI were excluded. Primary outcomes were fibroid size and uterine volume reduction, procedure time, length of hospital stay, reinterventions, patient symptom improvement/satisfaction and complications.

Results

We identified four observational studies (839 patients; giant = 163, non-giant = 676). Both groups demonstrated reduction in fibroid size and uterine volume after UAE, with equivocal difference in uterine volume reduction (Mean difference (MD) − 0.3 95% confidence interval (CI) − 3.8 to 3.1, p = 0.86) and greater reduction in non-giant dominant fibroid size (MD − 5.9 95% CI − 10.3 to − 1.5, p < 0.01). Giant fibroids were associated with 5.6 min longer mean operative time (MD 5.6 min 95% CI 2.6–8.6, p < 0.01) and 4.8 h longer mean hospital stay (MD 4.8 h 95% CI 1.1–8.6, p = 0.01). Patient symptoms/satisfaction outcomes were summarised, but too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Major complication and reintervention rates were low, with a statistically higher rate of major complications (Odds ratio (OR) 4.7 95% CI 1.5–14.6, p < 0.01) and reinterventions (OR 3.6 95% CI 1.7–7.5, p < 0.01) in giant fibroids.

Conclusions

Current evidence shows UAE is a safe and effective option to treat giant fibroids. However, the limited available data indicate a relatively higher risk of complications and reinterventions when compared with non-giant fibroids. Patients should be selected, counselled and managed accordingly.

Level of Evidence

Level III, Systematic review of retrospective cohort studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edwards RD, Moss JG, Lumsden MA, Wu O, Murray LS, Twaddle S, et al. Uterine-artery embolization versus surgery for symptomatic uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):360–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Narayan A, Lee AS, Kuo GP, Powe N, Kim HS. Uterine artery embolization versus abdominal myomectomy: a long-term clinical outcome comparison. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(7):1011–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moss J, Cooper K, Khaund A, Murray L, Murray G, Wu O, et al. Randomised comparison of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) with surgical treatment in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids (REST trial): 5-year results. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118(8):936–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02952.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. de Bruijn AM, Ankum WM, Reekers JA, Birnie E, van der Kooij SM, Volkers NA, et al. Uterine artery embolization vs hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: 10-year outcomes from the randomized EMMY trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):745.e1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smeets AJ, Nijenhuis RJ, van Rooij WJ, Weimar EAM, Boekkooi PF, Lampmann LEH, et al. Uterine artery embolization in patients with a large fibroid burden: long-term clinical and MR follow-up. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2010;33(5):943–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim JJ, Kurita T, Bulun SE. Progesterone action in endometrial cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and breast cancer. Endocr Rev. 2013;34(1):130–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Silberzweig JE, Powell DK, Matsumoto AH, Spies JB. Management of uterine fibroids: a focus on uterine-sparing interventional techniques. Radiology. 2016;280(3):675–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodwin SC, McLucas B, Lee M, Chen G, Perrella R, Vedantham S, et al. Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of uterine leiomyomata midterm results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10(9):1159–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pelage J-P, Le Dref O, Soyer P, Kardache M, Dahan H, Abitbol M, et al. Fibroid-related menorrhagia: treatment with superselective embolization of the uterine arteries and midterm follow-up. Radiology. 2000;215(2):428–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khalilzadeh O, Baerlocher MO, Shyn PB, Connolly BL, Devane AM, Morris CS, et al. Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the society of interventional radiology standards of practice committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(10):1432–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Katsumori T, Nakajima K, Mihara T. Is a large fibroid a high-risk factor for uterine artery embolization? Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(5):1309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bérczi V, Valcseva É, Kozics D, Kalina I, Kaposi P, Sziller P, et al. Safety and effectiveness of UFE in fibroids larger than 10 cm. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38(5):1152–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi HJ, Jeon GS, Kim MD, Lee JT, Yoon JH. Is uterine artery embolization for patients with large myomas safe and effective? A retrospective comparative study in 323 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(6):772–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Prollius A, de Vries C, Loggenberg E, du Plessis A, Nel M, Wessels PH. Uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids: the effect of the large uterus on outcome. BJOG. 2004;111(3):239–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Roth AR, Spies JB, Walsh SM, Wood BJ, Gomez-Jorge J, Levy EB. Pain after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: Can its severity be predicted and does severity predict outcome? J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(8):1047–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Verma SK, Bergin D, Gonsalves CF, Mitchell DG, Lev-Toaff AS, Parker L. Submucosal fibroids becoming endocavitary following uterine artery embolization: risk assessment by MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(5):1220–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Burbank F. Are fibroids that become endocavitary after uterine artery embolization necessarily a complication? Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(5):1227–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rajan DK, Beecroft JR, Clark TWI, Asch MR, Simons ME, Kachura JR, et al. Risk of intrauterine infectious complications after uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15(12):1415–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lai AC, Goodwin SC, Bonilla SM, Lai AP, Yegul T, Vott S, et al. Sexual dysfunction after uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(6):755–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kovacsik HV, Herbreteau D, Bommart S, Beregi J-P, Bartoli J-M, Sapoval M, et al. Evaluation of changes in sexual function related to uterine fibroid embolization (UFE): results of the EFUZEN study. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40(8):1169–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Spies JB, Coyne K, Guaou Guaou N, Boyle D, Skyrnarz-Murphy K, Gonzalves SM. The UFS-QOL, a new disease-specific symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire for leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(2):290–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. Thanks to Dr Jelena Savovic for statistical guidance and Dr Sarah McKeogh for assistance with data collection.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Oliver Llewellyn and Neeral R. Patel have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK

    Oliver Llewellyn

  2. Department of Radiology, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK

    Neeral R. Patel, Dermot Mallon & Mohamad Hamady

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK

    Stephen D. Quinn

Authors
  1. Oliver Llewellyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neeral R. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dermot Mallon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen D. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohamad Hamady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Llewellyn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. For this type of study, informed consent is not required. For this type of study, consent for publication is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Search Strategy

Appendix 1: Search Strategy

Search No.

Search strategy*

#1

(fibroid emboli*ation).ti,ab

#2

(“fibroid emboli*ation”).ti,ab

#3

(“uterine artery emboli*ation”).ti,ab

#4

(uterine artery emboli*ation).ti,ab

#5

(ufe).ti,ab

#6

(1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5)

#7

(giant OR large OR massive).ti,ab

#8

(non-giant OR small).ti,ab

#9

(7 OR 8)

#10

(fibroid*).ti,ab

#11

LEIOMYOMA/

#12

(leiomyoma*).ti,ab

#13

(10 OR 11 OR 12)

#14

(9 AND 13)

#15

(complication*).ti,ab

#16

(reintervention).ti,ab

#17

(reintervention).ti,ab

#18

(“uterine volume”).ti,ab

#19

(devasculari*ation).ti,ab

#20

(satisfaction).ti,ab

#21

“PATIENT SATISFACTION”/

#22

“INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS”/

#23

“POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS”/

#24

(15 OR 16 OR 17 OR 18 OR 19 OR 20 OR 21 OR 22 OR 23)

#25

(6 AND 14 AND 24)

  1. *Strategy used to search PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Llewellyn, O., Patel, N.R., Mallon, D. et al. Uterine Artery Embolisation for Women with Giant Versus Non-giant Uterine Fibroids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 43, 684–693 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02359-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02359-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation