ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of uterine-sparing interventions for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who wish to preserve their uterus. DESIGN: Systematic review and indirect comparison meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference proceedings, trial registers and reference lists were searched up to October 2013 for randomized controlled trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were patient satisfaction, re-intervention and complications rates, reproductive outcomes, and hospitalization and recovery times. RESULTS: Five trials, involving 436 women were included; two compared uterine artery embolization with myomectomy and three compared uterine artery embolization with laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion. Indirect treatment comparison showed that myomectomy and uterine artery embolization resulted in higher rates of patient satisfaction (odds ratio 2.56, 95% credible interval 0.56-11.75 and 2.7, 95% credible interval 1.1-7.14, respectively) and lower rates of clinical failure (odds ratio 0.29, 95% credible interval 0.06-1.46 and 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.13-0.93, respectively) than laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion. Myomectomy resulted in lower re-intervention rate than uterine artery embolization (odds ratio 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.02-0.27) and laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion (odds ratio 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.01-0.37) even though the latter techniques had an advantage over myomectomy because of shorter hospitalization and quicker recovery. There was no evidence of difference between the three techniques in ovarian failure and complications rates. The evidence for reproductive outcomes is poor. CONCLUSION: Our study's results suggest that laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion is less effective than uterine artery embolization and myomectomy in treatment of symptomatic fibroids. The choice between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy should be based on individuals' expectations and fully informed discussion.
