Conservative surgical treatment of uterine fibroids in women of childbearing age

Uterine fibroids are benign gynecologic tumors, and women aged between 30 to 50 years are known to have a high incidence of uterine fibroids. A growing number of pharmacotherapies and minimally invasive organ-preserving treatments have been designed and conducted over the past few years. However, there has not been any therapeutic drugs exhibiting an ideal therapeutic effect and low recurrence rate, such that the surgical treatment continues to be primarily employed in the actual clinical treatment. In general, surgical treatment has been performed as the organ- and fertility-preserving hysteroscopic or laparoscopic resections of the fibroids. Minimally invasive surgical equipment (e.g., hysteroscopy, traditional porous laparoscopy, trans-umbilical laparoscopy, transvaginal laparoscopy, as well as robot-assisted laparoscopy) has been extensively applied to clinical treatment. Compared with traditional laparotomy, minimally invasive surgical equipment is characterized by minimally invasive surgery, high efficiency and safety. As medical technology has been leaping forward, interventional therapy and radiofrequency ablation can also be employed for treating uterine fibroids. In accordance with the research progress worldwide, the current situation, limitations, and advantages of the treatment of uterine fibroids in patients with fertility requirements are reviewed in this study.

Uterine fibroids; Myomectomy; Uterine artery embolization; High-Intensity focused ultrasound; Radiofrequency ablation; Pregnancy; Fertility

[1] Grube M, Neis F, Brucker SY, Kommoss S, Andress J, Weiss M, et al. Uterine fibroids—current trends and strategies. Surgical Technology International. 2019; 34: 257–263.

[2] Orellana M, Riggan KA, DSouza K, DSouza K, Stewart EA, Venable S, et al. Perceptions of ethnoracial factors in the management and treatment of uterine fibroids. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2022; 9: 1184–1191.

[3] Johnson JA, Tough S. Delayed child-bearing. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2012; 34: 80–93.

[4] Rakotomahenina H, Rajaonarison J, Wong L, Brun J. Myomectomy: technique and current indications. Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 69: 357–369.

[5] Wise LA, Laughlin-Tommaso SK. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016; 59: 2–24.

[6] Lee HJ, Kim SJ, Park EC. Psychiatric outcomes after hysterectomy in women with uterine myoma: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Archives of Women’s Mental Health. 2017; 20: 487–494.

[7] Loddo A, Djokovic D, Drizi A, De Vree BP, Sedrati A, van Herendael BJ. Hysteroscopic myomectomy: the guidelines of the international society for gynecologic endoscopy (ISGE). European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. 2022; 268: 121–128.

[8] Brady PC, Stanic AK, Styer AK. Uterine fibroids and subfertility: an update on the role of myomectomy. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013; 25: 255–259.

[9] Yang Y, Yang Y, You M, Chen L, Sun F. Observation of pregnancy outcomes in patients with hysteroscopic resection on submucous myomas. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2022; 48: 360–365.

[10] Tinelli A, Kosmas IP, Carugno JT, Carp H, Malvasi A, Cohen SB, et al. Uterine rupture during pregnancy: The URIDA (uterine rupture international data acquisition) study. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2022; 157: 76–84.

[11] Haviv E, Schwarzman P, Bernstein EH, Wainstock T, Weintraub AY, Leron E, et al. Subsequent pregnancy outcomes after abdominal vs. laparoscopic myomectomy. The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2021; 1–7.

[12] Zapardiel I, Boria F, Halaska MJ, De Santiago J. Laparoscopic power morcellation: techniques to avoid tumoral spread. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 1442–1443.

[13] Wang W, Liang H, Zhao F, Yu H, Rong C, Feng W, et al. A novel multiport containment system for laparoscopic power morcellation to prevent tumoral spread: a retrospective cohort study. Frontiers in Surgery. 2022; 9: 803950.

[14] Sleiman Z, Baba RE, Garzon S, Khazaka A. The significant risk factors of intra-operative hemorrhage during laparoscopic myomectomy: a systematic review. Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy. 2020; 9: 6–12.

[15] Gitas G, Hanker L, Rody A, Ackermann J, Alkatout I. Robotic surgery in gynecology: is the future already here? Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. 2022; 31: 815–824.

[16] Özbaşlı E, Güngör M. Comparison of perioperative outcomes among robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic, and abdominal/open myomectomies. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association. 2021; 22: 312–318.

[17] Lee D, Lee JR, Suh CS, Kim SH. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single port laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019; 239: 52–59.

[18] Jiang L, Tong D, Li Y, Liu Q, Liu K. Application of single-port laparoscopic surgery in myomectomy. Frontiers in Oncology. 2021; 11: 722084.

[19] Baekelandt J. Transvaginal natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a new approach to myomectomy. Fertility and Sterility. 2018; 109: 179.

[20] Russ M, Hees KA, Kemmer M, Richter R, Kröncke T, Schnapauff D, et al. Preoperative uterine artery embolization in women undergoing uterus-preserving myomectomy for extensive fibroid disease: a retrospective analysis. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2022; 87: 38–45.

[21] Davis MR, Soliman AM, Castelli-Haley J, Snabes MC, Surrey ES. Reintervention rates after myomectomy, endometrial ablation, and uterine artery embolization for patients with uterine fibroids. Journal of Women’s Health. 2018; 27: 1204–1214.

[22] Kröncke T, David M; participants of the Consensus Meeting. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) for fibroid treatment—results of the 5th radio-logical gynecological expert meeting. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde. 2015; 75: 439–441.

[23] Ghanaati H, Sanaati M, Shakiba M, Bakhshandeh H, Ghavami N, Aro S, et al. Pregnancy and its outcomes in patients after uterine fibroid embolization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2020; 43: 1122–1133.

[24] Sanders AP, Norris S, Tulandi T, Murji A. Reproductive outcomes following uterine artery occlusion at the time of myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2020; 42: 787–797.e782.

[25] Pron G. Magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU) treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. 2015; 15: 1–86.

[26] Torres-de la Roche LA, Rafiq S, Devassy R, Verhoeven HC, Becker S, De Wilde RL. Should ultrasound-guided high frequency focused ultrasound be considered as an alternative non-surgical treatment of uterine fibroids in non-Asiatic countries? An opinion paper. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11: 839.

[27] Römer T, Bends R, Christoffel L, Felberbaum R, Hildebrandt T, Meinhold-Heerlein I, et al. The significance of transcervical ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids: results of an expert consensus from German-speaking countries. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2022; 306: 1–6.

[28] Piriyev E, Schiermeier S, Bends R, Römer T. Transcervical radiofre-quency ablation of fibroids that are 5 cm or larger in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2022; 51: 102303.

[29] Iavazzo C, Psomiadou V, Fotiou A, Vrachnis N. Concerns about transcervical radiofrequency ablation of uterine fibroids. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2022; 51: 102325.

[30] Christoffel L, Bends R, Toub D, Schiermeier S, Pschadka G, Engelhardt M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after transcervical radiofrequency ablation of uterine fibroids with the sonata system. Journal of Gynecologic Surgery. 2022; 38: 207–213.