Uterine artery embolization vs myomectomy for the management of women with uterine leiomyomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate whether uterine artery embolization offers a better quality of life than myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with leiomyomas of the uterus.

Data Sources

A literature search was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2023.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Randomized controlled trials comparing uterine artery embolization with myomectomy in women of premenopausal age suffering from uterine leiomyomas were considered.

Methods

The primary outcome was quality of life. The secondary outcomes were reintervention rate and timing, successful pregnancy, stillbirth and miscarriage, cesarean delivery on delivery, and perioperative morbidity. Moreover, time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses were performed, as appropriate. The certainty of the evidence was assessed in line with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology.

Results

A total of 6 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis suggested little to no difference in terms of quality of life between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy (standard mean difference, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, −0.38 to 0.48; I²=92%; very low certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analysis, including randomized controlled trials, which included solely myomectomy procedures in the control arm, demonstrated better quality of life for women treated with myomectomy (standard mean difference, −0.32; 95% confidence interval, −0.49 to −0.15; I²=15%). Concerning reintervention, myomectomy was likely associated with a decreased risk of future reintervention (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.15–0.69; I²=60%; low certainty of evidence) and a more prolonged time interval since a potential reintervention because of recurrence than uterine artery embolization (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–0.77; I²=77%; low certainty of evidence). No difference was found between the 2 interventions concerning severe perioperative adverse events (relative risk, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–39.20; I²=0%; low certainty of evidence).

Conclusion

Uterine artery embolization is likely associated with increased reintervention rates and less time to reintervention compared with myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with uterine leiomyomas. Evidence suggests no difference between the 2 interventions regarding perioperative morbidity. Uterine artery embolization may exert no effect on quality of life and successful pregnancy; however, the evidence is very uncertain.