SonoVue could be safely used to enhance the ablation effects of HIFU treatment of uterine fibroids.

Zhou (2021) Comparison of outcomes of hysteroscopic myomectomy of type 2 submucous fibroids greater than 4 cm in diameter via pretreatment with HIFU or GnRH-a ,

We propose an appealing line-search-based partial proximal alternating directions (LSPPAD) method for solving a class of separable convex optimization problems. These problems under consideration are common in practice. The proposed method solves two subproblems at each iteration: one is solved by a proximal point method, while the proximal term is absent from the other. Both subproblems admit inexact solutions. A line search technique is used to guarantee the convergence. The convergence of the LSPPAD method is established under some suitable conditions. The advantage of the proposed method is that it provides the tractability of the subproblem in which the proximal term is absent. Numerical tests show that the LSPPAD method has better performance compared with the existing alternating projection based prediction-correction (APBPC) method if both are employed to solve the described problem.

Purpose To determine efficacy and safety of contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in high‐intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation of uterine fibroids (UFs). Methods We retrospectively reviewed women undergoing HIFU ablation for UFs between June 2018 and January 2020. Before and after HIFU, patients underwent CEUS and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. The relationship between CEUS features and ablation rate was analyzed. The time–intensity curves on CEUS were measured before and after HIFU ablation, and compared with those obtained using MRI. Adverse reactions were recorded. Results A total of 64 patients were included. The immediate HIFU ablation rate significantly differed between low‐, iso‐, and high‐enhancement UFs (87.2% ± 1.6%, 83.3% ± 2.1%, and 72.9% ± 3.1%, respectively; p < 0.05). On CEUS, the peak time of the time–intensity curve was significantly longer after treatment than before treatment (32.2 ± 9.7 and 26.7 ± 9.4 s, respectively; p < 0.05). Peak intensity was significantly lower after treatment than before treatment (13.7 ± 7.5 and 30.9 ± 11.2 dB, respectively; p < 0.05). All measurements were comparable between CEUS and MRI. The most common peri‐ and post‐procedure adverse reaction was pain, which was temporary. Conclusion CEUS could dynamically and safely evaluate the immediate effects of the HIFU ablation of UFs.