Transvaginal Radiofrequency Ablation of Myomas: Technique, Outcomes, and Complications

Abstract

TRFAM is an effective and safe technique in selected patients for the treatment of metrorrhagia secondary to myomas.

Comparison between radiofrequency ablation combined with mifepristone and radiofrequency ablation for large uterine fibroids

“…The mean reduction in fibroid volume was 41% at the end of 3 months with a 25 mg dose of mifepristone, which is comparable to previous studies [11][12][13][14]. In previous studies, the one-year uterine volume reduction rate of RFA ranged from 60% to 90% [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Our results are within the previously reported ranges.…”

“…In recent years, ultrasound-guided (US-guided) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been the focus of interest as a minimally invasive strategy for patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Previous studies have reported that RFA can provide symptomatic relief and significant improvement in the quality of life [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. However, optimal patients might be those with small fibroids (diameter <5 cm or volume < 180 cm 3 ) [2][3][4][5].…”

“…Previous studies have reported that RFA can provide symptomatic relief and significant improvement in the quality of life [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. However, optimal patients might be those with small fibroids (diameter <5 cm or volume < 180 cm 3 ) [2][3][4][5]. For larger fibroids, RFA may not be effective, and the risk of complications may also increase [2][3][4][5].…”

“…However, optimal patients might be those with small fibroids (diameter <5 cm or volume < 180 cm 3 ) [2][3][4][5]. For larger fibroids, RFA may not be effective, and the risk of complications may also increase [2][3][4][5].…”

Clinical Performance of Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Uterine Fibroids: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

“…Lim et al 5 reported that laparoscopic Bongers et al 15 39 -23 -4.4 -3.1 -Brölmann et al 16 Garza-Leal 17 ----Braun et al 18 114 -60 6.8 -3.2 --Brucker et al 19 66 -24 10.0 -5.5 20.5 (5, 103) a 10.0 (2, 86) a Hahn et al 20 Krämer et al 21 Carrafiello et al 22 20 (15, 25) b ---Cho et al 23 -(10, 40) ---Cho et al 24 ----Chudnoff et al 25 126 -60 -9.0 (2, 60) a 5.0 (0, 29) a Galen et al 26 Guido et al 27 Berman et al 28 Chudnoff et al 29 47 -30 2. 30 Galen et al 31 140 (42, 290) a -4.5 (1, 11) b 4.0 (2, 10) a Garza-Leal et al 32 Robles et al 33 Ghezzi et al 34 25 (20, 45) a 18 c --Bergamini et al 35 Iversen and Dueholm 36 ----Iversen et al 37 Jiang et al 38 25 (20, 30) b ---Kim et al 39 18 -5 ---Lee et al 40 ----Marcos et al 41 36 -11 12.0 (8, 24) b --Meng et al 42 ----Rattray et al 43 73 -26 6.7 -3.0 -11.1 -7.6 Rey et al 44 17 (11, 44) b ---Turtulici et al 45 28 (16, 43) b ---Wu et al 46 -(20, 40) 2.5 c --…”