From: Uterine artery embolisation: fertility, adenomyosis and size – what is the evidence?
Study, year | Study design | Period | Cohort size (n) | Embolic | Follow up (months) | Indication | Primary Outcome | Secondary Outcome | Quality score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Siskin et al. 2001 | Retrospective cohort | NR | 13 | 255–500 μm PVA | 10.2 | AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk | Symptom improvement, HRQOL | JZ thickness | 13 |
Millo et al. 2010 | Prospective cohort | NR | 7 | 300–500 μm PVA | 6 | AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk | Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL | NA | 15 |
Froeling et al. 2012 | Prospective cohort | 2001–2009 | 40 | 355–900 μm TGM | 40 | AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk | Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL | NA | 15 |
Smeets et al. 2012 | Prospective cohort | 1999–2006 | 40 | 500–700 μm TGM | 65 | AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk | Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL | Uterine volume, JZ thickness, infarction | 18 |
aNijenhuis et al. 2015 | Prospective cohort | 2006–2010 | 29 | 500–900 μm hydrogel microspheres | 37 | AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk | Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL | Uterine volume | 19 |
Prospective cohort | 2006–2010 | 29 | 500–900 μm hydrogel microspheres | 84 | AUB, dysmenorrhea, bulk | Symptom improvement, UFS-QOL | Menopause | NR |