Uterine artery embolization versus surgery in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Sanne M. van der Kooij, Shandra Bipat, Wouter J. K. Hehenkamp, Willem M. Ankum, Jim A. Reekers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

70 Citations (Scopus)


To summarize the evidence on short-, mid-, and long-term results up to 5 years of uterine artery embolization in comparison to surgery. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for randomized clinical trials comparing uterine artery embolization with hysterectomy/myomectomy in premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding caused by symptomatic uterine fibroids, written from September 1995 to November 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality and extracted data from included trials. Four randomized controlled trials with a total of 515 patients were included. On the short-term, uterine artery embolization showed fewer blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and quicker resumption of work. Mid- and long-term results showed comparable health-related quality of life results and a higher reintervention rate in the uterine artery embolization group, whereas both groups were equally satisfied. Uterine artery embolization has short-term advantages over surgery. On the mid- and long-term the benefits were similar, except for a higher reintervention rate after uterine artery embolization
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)317.e1-317.18
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Cite this