Focused ultrasound treatment of uterine fibroid tumors: Safety and feasibility of a noninvasive thermoablative technique

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of focused ultrasound surgery with magnetic resonance imaging guidance for the noninvasive treatment of uterine leiomyomas. Study Design: Fifty-five women with clinically significant uterine leiomyomas were treated. Pain a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2003-07, Vol.189 (1), p.48-54
Hauptverfasser: Stewart, Elizabeth A., Gedroyc, Wladyslaw M.W., Tempany, Clare M.C., Quade, Bradley J., Inbar, Yael, Ehrenstein, Tilman, Shushan, Asher, Hindley, Jonathan T., Goldin, Robert D., David, Matthias, Sklair, Miri, Rabinovici, Jaron
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of focused ultrasound surgery with magnetic resonance imaging guidance for the noninvasive treatment of uterine leiomyomas. Study Design: Fifty-five women with clinically significant uterine leiomyomas were treated. Pain and complications were assessed prospectively, and posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure the treatment effects. Patients in three of the five centers underwent planned hysterectomy after treatment, which provided pathologic correlation of treatment. Results: Seventy-six percent of the enrolled patients completed the full treatment session. All treatments were conducted in an outpatient setting with minimal discomfort for subjects and no major complications. Pathologic examination of the uterus confirmed that magnetic resonance imaging guidance provides the safe and accurate delivery of effective levels of thermal energy with a 3-fold increase in volume of histologically documented necrosis, compared with treatment volume (6.6 ± 0.8 vs 18.4 ± 3.9 mL, P
ISSN:0002-9378
1097-6868
DOI:10.1067/mob.2003.345