| Summary: | ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review the safety and efficacy of uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus surgery for symptomatic uterine fibroids.Materials and Methods: An electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases was conducted from their inception to May 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed UAE versus surgery for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. The references of the included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened the studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.Results: A total of seven RCTs involving 859 patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed a shorter hospital stay and recovery time for UAE as compared to surgery. Surgery was not reported to be better for improving health-related quality of life in any of the included studies. There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction (1-2 and 5 years), and intra-procedural complications or major complications (1 year). However, the rates of minor complications (1 year) and further interventions (2 and 5 years) were significantly higher in patients who underwent UAE rather than surgery. The rates of pregnancy and live births were significantly lower among patients who underwent UAE than surgery.Conclusion: UAE is safe and effective, and has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and recovery time as compared to surgery. However, UAE has the risk of re-intervention, and lower pregnancy and live birth rates. Keywords:: uterine artery embolization, surgery, meta-analysis
|
|---|
