切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (12) : 1203 -1207. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2021.12.014

介入超声影像学

聚焦超声消融对阔韧带子宫肌瘤的临床疗效
吴萍1,(), 陈艳2, 陈丰华1, 张立晶1   
  1. 1. 322000 浙江义乌,义乌市中心医院妇科
    2. 322000 浙江义乌,义乌市中心医院超声室
  • 收稿日期:2021-01-12 出版日期:2021-12-01
  • 通信作者: 吴萍

Clinical efficacy of focused ultrasound ablation for uterine broad ligament leiomyoma

Ping Wu1,(), Yan Chen2, Fenghua Chen1, Lijing Zhang1   

  1. 1. Department of Gynecology, Yiwu Central Hospital, Yiwu 322000, China
    2. Ultrasonic Room, Yiwu Central Hospital, Yiwu 322000, China
  • Received:2021-01-12 Published:2021-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Ping Wu
引用本文:

吴萍, 陈艳, 陈丰华, 张立晶. 聚焦超声消融对阔韧带子宫肌瘤的临床疗效[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(12): 1203-1207.

Ping Wu, Yan Chen, Fenghua Chen, Lijing Zhang. Clinical efficacy of focused ultrasound ablation for uterine broad ligament leiomyoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2021, 18(12): 1203-1207.

目的

分析聚焦超声消融治疗对阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者的临床疗效。

方法

选择2018年4月至2019年8月义乌市中心医院收治的48例阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者作为研究对象,按随机数字表法将患者分为栓塞组和消融组各24例。栓塞组采用子宫动脉栓塞术治疗,消融组采用聚焦超声消融治疗。观察2组患者治疗效果、不良反应、肿瘤体积、术后症状缓解时间以及雌激素变化,采用χ2检验比较2组间治疗效果和不良反应的差异,采用t检验比较2组间肌瘤体积、症状缓解时间以及雌激素变化水平的差异。

结果

栓塞组、消融组治疗总有效率分别为91.67%、95.83%,2组对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。栓塞组、消融组不良反应发生率分别为29.17%、25.00%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组患者治疗前肌瘤体积比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后6个月、12个月,消融组肌瘤体积明显小于栓塞组[(22.45±6.78)cm3 vs(32.82±8.63)cm3;(3.25±1.34)cm3 vs(8.26±1.47)cm3],差异具有统计学意义(t=4.630、12.399,P均=0.001)。消融组压迫症状缓解时间和痛经症状缓解时间均短于栓塞组[(6.42±1.34)d vs(8.92±1.65)d;(10.27±2.13)d vs(13.74±2.58)d],差异具有统计学意义(t=5.762、5.081,P均=0.001)。治疗前、后2组患者卵泡刺激素和黄体生成素水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。

结论

聚焦超声消融治疗阔韧带子宫肌瘤与子宫动脉栓塞术效果相当,且能明显减小肌瘤体积,缩短症状缓解时间。

Objective

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of focused ultrasound ablation in patients with uterine broad ligament leiomyoma.

Methods

From April 2018 to August 2019, 48 patients with uterine broad ligament leiomyoma treated at Yiwu Central Hospital were included as the subjects. Among them, 24 patients were treated by uterine artery embolization and 24 patients by focused ultrasound ablation. The therapeutic effect, adverse reactions, tumor volume, time to postoperative symptom relief, and estrogen changes were recorded. The χ2-test was used to compare differences in the therapeutic effect and adverse reactions between the two groups, and the t-test was used to compare differences in tumor volume, time to postoperative symptom relief, and estrogen changes between the two groups.

Results

The total effective rate in the embolization and ablation groups was 91.67% and 95.83%, respectively; there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions also did not differ significantly between the embolization group and ablation group (29.17% vs 25.00%, P>0.05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the volume of leiomyoma between the two groups (P>0.05); at 6 months and 12 months after treatment, the volume of leiomyoma in the ablation group was significantly smaller than that in the embolization group [(22.45±6.78) cm3 vs (32.82±8.63) cm3, t=5.762, P=0.001; (3.25±1.34) cm3 vs (8.26±1.47) cm3, t=5.081, P=0.001]. The time to relief of compression symptom and dysmenorrhea symptom in the ablation group was significantly shorter than that in the embolization group [(6.42±1.34) d vs (8.92±1.65) d, t=5.762, P=0.001; (10.27±2.13) d vs (13.74±2.58) d, t=5.081, P=0.001]. There was no significant difference in follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone levels between the two groups before and after treatment (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Focused ultrasound ablation is effective in the treatment of uterine broad ligament leiomyoma, which is comparable to that of uterine artery embolization. Focused ultrasound ablation can obviously reduce the volume of leiomyoma and shorten the time to symptom relief, which is worthy of clinical application and popularization.

表1 2组阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者治疗效果对比
表2 2组阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者术后不良反应比较
表3 2组阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者治疗前、治疗后6个月、治疗后12个月肌瘤体积变化情况比较(cm3
xˉ
±s)
表4 2组阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者术后症状缓解时间比较(d,
xˉ
±s)
表5 2组阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者治疗前后雌激素变化情况比较(IU/L,
xˉ
±s)
图1 阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者消融治疗前MRI增强扫描见右侧阔韧带子宫肌瘤
图2 阔韧带子宫肌瘤患者消融治疗后MRI增强扫描子宫肌瘤未见强化
1
江昭颖, 朱小刚, 薛敏. 高强度聚焦超声消融治疗子宫肌瘤后妊娠结局及影响因素分析[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2020, 36(2): 168-172.
2
de Bruijn AM, Ankum WM, Reekers JA, et al. Uterine artery embolization vs hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: 10-year outcomes from the randomized EMMY trial [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 215(6): 745.e1-745.e12.
3
Cheng C, Xiao Z, Huang G, et al. Enhancing ablation effects of a microbubble contrast agent on high-intensity focused ultrasound: an experimental and clinical study [J]. BJOG, 2017, 124(Suppl 3): 78-86.
4
张光雨, 涂素华, 邹倩, 等. 子宫肌瘤患者行基于日间手术模式的高强度聚焦超声消融术的院内时间、治疗费用、满意度评价 [J]. 中国性科学, 2020, 29(9): 105-108.
5
子宫肌瘤的诊治中国专家共识专家组. 子宫肌瘤的诊治中国专家共识 [J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2017, 52(12): 793-800.
6
Chen Y, Jiang J, Zeng YH, et al. Effects of a microbubble ultrasound contrast agent on high-intensity focused ultrasound for uterine fibroids: a randomised controlled trial [J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2018, 34(8): 1311-1315.
7
黄耀渠, 周守国, 王娟, 等. 磁共振引导聚焦超声术消融子宫肌瘤及腺肌症的可行性和安全性对比分析 [J]. 中华医学杂志, 2019, 99(15): 1152-1155.
8
曹霞, 何国照. 子宫动脉栓塞术治疗子宫肌瘤效果及对患者血清MMPs、TIMPs、性激素水平的影响 [J]. 山东医药, 2018, 58(26): 76-78.
9
Ji LM, Jin LY, Hu M. Laparoscopic myomectomy with temporary bilateral uterine artery occlusion compared with traditional surgery for uterine myomas: blood loss and recurrence [J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2018, 25(3): 434-439.
10
Kim SY, Koo BN, Shin CS, et al. The effects of single-dose dexamethasone on inflammatory response and pain after uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids or adenomyosis: a randomised controlled study [J]. BJOG, 2016, 123(4): 580-587.
11
Ge HX, Xu W, Du DQ, et al. Impact and clinical significance of Embosphere microsphere artery embolization therapy in serum VEGF expression level of women patients with uterine fibroids [J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2017, 21(5): 913-921.
12
苗阔, 董晓秋, 邵小慧, 等. 子宫肌瘤射频消融术后短期疗效评估的超声影响因素分析 [J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2019, 16(4): 275-280.
13
Torre A, Fauconnier A, Kahn V, et al. Fertility after uterine artery embolization for symptomatic multiple fibroids with no other infertility factors [J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27(7): 2850-2859.
14
尤俊芬. 高强度聚焦超声消融术治疗不同大小子宫肌瘤的疗效及对患者妊娠结局的影响 [J]. 实用癌症杂志, 2020, 35(4): 656-659.
15
Fu X, Huang F, Chen Y, et al. Application of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil in high-intensity ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids: a randomised study [J]. BJOG, 2017, 124(Suppl 3): 23-29.
16
Jacoby VL, Kohi MP, Poder L, et al. PROMISe trial: a pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound for uterine fibroids [J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 105(3): 773-780.
17
郭启龙, 门永忠, 李玲, 等. 高强度聚焦超声消融子宫肌瘤对患者内分泌水平和生育功能的影响 [J]. 医学影像学杂志, 2020, 30(8): 1529-1532.
18
Barnard EP, AbdElmagied AM, Vaughan LE, et al. Periprocedural outcomes comparing fibroid embolization and focused ultrasound: a randomized controlled trial and comprehensive cohort analysis [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 216(5): 500.e1-500.e11.
19
Laughlin-Tommaso S, Barnard EP, AbdElmagied AM, et al. FIRSTT study: randomized controlled trial of uterine artery embolization vs focused ultrasound surgery [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 220(2): 174.e1-174.e13.
20
赵巧霞, 王宝金. 高强度聚焦超声子宫肌瘤消融术对子宫内膜容受性、性激素水平及妊娠结局的影响 [J]. 安徽医药, 2019, 23(5): 942-945.
21
Manyonda I, Belli AM, Lumsden MA, et al. Uterine-artery embolization or myomectomy for uterine fibroids [J]. N Engl J Med, 2020, 383(5): 440-451.
[1] 吕小利, 陈萍, 徐惠英, 胡丹, 杨清. 彩色多普勒超声在获得性子宫动静脉瘘的诊断及疗效评估中的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2019, 16(03): 181-185.
[2] 魏双双, 张治芬, 李鼎恒, 黄坚, 金雪静. 剖宫产瘢痕处双胎异位妊娠患者诊治研究并文献复习[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 17(04): 453-458.
[3] 蔡鑫, 林振江, 汤亚兰, 林单, 罗岳西, 徐凡, 梁婷. 不同方法治疗腹壁子宫内膜异位症的临床疗效[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 16(03): 351-357.
[4] 许可, 宁刚. 不同栓塞剂对子宫动脉化疗栓塞术联合超声引导下清宫术治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠患者的出血量影响[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(05): 520-526.
[5] 肖卓妮, 杨菁, 徐望明. 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗策略的临床疗效及并发症发生情况研究[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(01): 31-38.
[6] 林琼燕, 郝世辉, 谭琳, 刘娟. 高强度超声聚焦对剖宫产瘢痕部位妊娠的治疗效果[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2019, 08(02): 116-120.
[7] 徐少锋, 王致强, 胡红杰. 疤痕妊娠明胶海绵介入栓塞后子宫动脉再通的影响因素[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 30-34.
[8] 王建爽, 张海静, 王雪松, 文颖, 周子敬. 不同预处理方式联合超声监测下清宫术治疗外生型CSP的疗效及安全性[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 371-375.
[9] 李陆鹏, 曹广劭, 刘建文, 刘玉岩, 刘瑞青, 曹会存, 李天晓. 子宫动静脉畸形介入栓塞治疗19例临床研究[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2020, 08(03): 237-239.
[10] 罗荣光, 关晏星. 介入技术在凶险性前置胎盘剖宫产术的应用[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2020, 08(03): 269-275.
[11] 孙增涛, 张垒, 刘薇, 李继军, 王银昌. 刮宫术前行子宫动脉栓塞术治疗347例子宫瘢痕妊娠的临床价值研究[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2018, 06(03): 204-208.
[12] 吕益忠, 徐文健, 严冬华, 董淑蔷, 马永建, 王艳, 王晓静. 影响子宫动脉栓塞术在剖宫产疤痕妊娠中应用的因素分析[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2018, 06(03): 199-203.
[13] 金昌, 吴常生, 穆永旭, 闫瑞强, 张磊, 刘海艳. 自控镇痛泵对子宫动脉栓塞术后疼痛的疗效分析[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2017, 05(03): 143-145.
[14] 李奎, 颜国辉, 邹煜. 子宫动脉栓塞与甲氨蝶呤治疗不同MRI分型的剖宫产术后疤痕妊娠的疗效评价[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2017, 05(03): 128-134.
[15] 汤斐, 赵云. 子宫动脉介入栓塞合并氨甲喋呤注射在胎盘完全滞留中的应用[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2019, 05(03): 141-146.
阅读次数
全文


摘要