{"paper_id":"02789732-d9aa-4e2b-9ee7-b2b2f43a755a","body_text":"Abstract\nPurpose\nThis study was designed to compare quality of life (QoL) outcomes after uterine artery embolization (UAE) or myomectomy.\nMethods\nWomen with symptomatic fibroids diagnosed by ultrasound who wished to preserve their uterus were randomized to myomectomy (n = 81) or UAE (n = 82). Endpoints at 1 year were QoL measured by a validated questionnaire, hospital stay, rates of complications, and need for reintervention.\nResults\nUAE patients had shorter hospitalization (2 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). By 1 year postintervention, significant and equal improvements in QoL scores had occurred in both groups (myomectomy n = 59; UAE n = 61). There had been two (2.9%) major complications among UAE versus 6 (8%) among myomectomy patients (not significant). By 2 years, among UAE patients (n = 57) there were eight (14.0%) reinterventions for inadequate symptom control compared with one (2.7%) among myomectomy patients (n = 37). Half of the women who required hysterectomy had concomitant adenomyosis missed by US.\nConclusions\nUAE and myomectomy both result in significant and equal improvements in QoL. UAE allows a shorter hospital stay and fewer major complications but with a higher rate of reintervention.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nMukhopadhaya N, De Silva C, Manyonda IT (2008) Conventional myomectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 22(4):677–705\nBratby MJ, Belli AM (2008) Radiological treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 22(4):717–734\nOffice of National Statistics (2009) Birth statistics. Report no.: Series FM1 no. 37. London: Office of National Statistics\nOlufowobi O, Sharif K, Papaionnon S et al (2004) Are the anticipated benefits of myomectomy achieved in women of reproductive age? A 5-year review of the results at a UK tertiary hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 24(4):434–440\nVercellini P, Maddalena S, Giorgi OD, Aimi G, Crosignani PG (1998) Abdominal myomectomy for infertility: a comprehensive review. Hum Reprod 13:873–879\nSawin SW, Pilevsky ND, Berlin JA, Barnhart KT (2000) Comparability of perioperative morbidity between abdominal myomectomy and hysterectomy for women with uterine leiomyomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(6):1448–1455\nTulandi T, Murray C, Guralnick M (1993) Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 82(2):213–215\nThompson LB, Reed SD, McCrummen BK et al (2006) Leiomyoma characteristics and risk of subsequent surgery after myomectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95(2):138–143\nPron G, Bennett J, Common A, Wall J, Asch M, Sniderman K (2003) The Ontario Uterine Fibroid Embolization Trial. Part 2. Uterine fibroid reduction and symptom relief after uterine artery embolization for fibroids. Fertil Steril 79:120–127\nPron G, Mocarski E, Bennett J et al (2003) Tolerance, hospital stay, and recovery after uterine artery embolization for fibroids: the Ontario Uterine Fibroid Embolization Trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:1243–1250\nWalker WJ, Pelage JP (2002) Uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids: clinical results in 400 women with imaging follow up. BJOG 109:1262–1272\nSiskin GP, Shlansky-Goldberg RD, Goodwin SC et al (2006) A prospective multicenter comparative study between myomectomy and uterine artery embolization with polyvinyl alcohol microspheres: long-term clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1287–1295\nHirst A, Dutton S, Wu O, Briggs A, Edwards C, Waldenmaier L, Maresh M, Nicholson A, McPherson K (2008) A multi-centre retrospective cohort study comparing the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy and uterine artery embolisation for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. (HOPEFUL) Health Technol Assess 12(5):1–248\nVolkers NA, Hehenkamp WJ, Birnie E, Ankum WM, Reekers JA (2007) Uterine artery embolization versus hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: 2 years’ outcome from the randomized EMMY trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:519.e1–519.e11\nEdwards RD, Moss JG, Lumsden MA et al (2007) Uterine-artery embolization versus surgery for symptomatic uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 356:360–370\nMara M, Fucikova Z, Maskova J, Kuzel D, Haakova L (2006) Uterine fibroid embolization versus myomectomy in women wishing to preserve fertility: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 126:226–233\nMatson M, Nicholson A, Belli AM (2000) Anastomoses of the ovarian and uterine arteries: a potential pitfall and cause of failure of uterine embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23(5):393–396\nSpies JB, Coyne K, Guaou GN, Boyle D, Skyrnarz-Murphy K, Gonzalves SM et al (2002) The UFS-QOL, a new disease-specific symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire for leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol 99(2):290–300\nGoodwin SC, Bonilla SM, Sacks D, Reed RA, Spies JB et al (2003) Reporting standards for uterine artery embolization for the treatment of uterine leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S467–S476\nvan der Kooij SM, Hehenkamp WJK, Volkers NA et al (2010) Uterine artery embolization vs hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: 5-year outcome from the randomized EMMY trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:105.e1–105.e13\nMoss JG, Cooper KG, Khaund A et al (2011) Randomized comparison of uterine artery embolization (UAE) with surgical treatment in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids (REST trial):5-year results. BJOG. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528\nNarayan A, Lee AS, Kuo GP et al (2010) Uterine artery embolization versus abdominal myomectomy: a long-term clinical outcome comparison. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21(7):1011–1017\nBratby MJ, Walker WJ (2009) Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis–mid-term results. Eur J Radiol 70(1):128–132\nKim MD, Kim S, Kim NK et al (2007) Long-term results of uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis. Am J Roentgenol 188(1):176–181\nPelage JP, Guaou NG, Jha RC et al (2004) Uterine fibroid tumours: long-term MR imaging outcome after embolization. Radiology 230:803–809\nKatsumori T, Kasahara T, Kin Y, Nozaki T (2008) Infarction of uterine fibroids after embolization: relationship between post-procedural enhanced MRI findings and long-term clinical outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31:66–72\nCandiani GB, Fedele L, Parazzini F, Villa L (1991) Risk of recurrence after myomectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98(4):385–389\nHanafi M (2005) Predictors of leiomyoma recurrence after myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol 105(4):877–881\nSeracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F, Rossi E, Venturoli S, Bulletti C et al (2000) Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod 15(12):2663–2668\nGriffiths A, D’Angelo A, Amso N (2006) Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003857\nKolankaya A, Arici A (2006) Myomas and assisted reproductive technologies: when and how to act? Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 33(1):145–152\nMara M, Maskova J, Fucikova Z et al (2008) Midterm clinical and first reproductive results of a randomized controlled trial comparing uterine fibroid embolization and myomectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31(1):73–85\nHomer H, Saridogan E (2010) Uterine artery embolization for fibroids is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. Fertil Steril 94(1):324–330\nAcknowledgments\nThis study did not receive official funding but was supported by soft funds. The authors thank all the women who participated in this trial.\nConflict of interest\nNone.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nAdditional information\nThis study was approved by the Wandsworth Research Ethics committee (Ref 01.96.3).\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nManyonda, I.T., Bratby, M., Horst, J.S. et al. Uterine Artery Embolization versus Myomectomy: Impact on Quality of Life—Results of the FUME (Fibroids of the Uterus: Myomectomy versus Embolization) Trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35, 530–536 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0228-5\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0228-5","source_license":"public-domain-us","license_restricted":false}