Search

Introduction: Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) is a relatively uncommon condition associated with diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties among all the extra pelvic endometriosis. The main therapies include surgery and oral contraceptive administration. Percutaneous cryoablation and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) are also proven to be valid alternatives. Microwave ablation (MWA) as one of the thermal ablation methods has not been applied in the treatment of AWE yet. Herein the feasibility of ultrasound (US) -guided MWA for AWE was explored and treatment response evaluation was carried out using contrast-enhanced imaging., Methods: Three consecutive patients who underwent US-guided MWA for AWE with typical symptoms were included in this retrospective study. US, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), laboratory tests, and US-guided core-needle biopsy were conducted for pre-treatment assessment and ruling out malignancy. The interventional procedure was carried out under local anesthesia with MWA and the output power was 60w. Post-treatment contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) was performed to evaluate the instant treatment response. The follow-up intervals were 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment. The clinical symptoms and condition of AWE lesions were recorded in each follow-up., Results: The MWA procedure was completed in all the patients with no blood perfusion inside each lesion by instant CEUS after treatment. The mean ablation time was 687 seconds (s) for a single patient (ranged from 660s to 742s). Clinical symptoms were relieved evidently at the end of the follow-up. The pain according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) decreased from 4-6 before treatment to 0-2 after treatment. Mild to moderate complications included slightly abdominal pain and fat liquefaction occurred. In terms of technical outcomes, the volume of all six lesions reduced in different degrees at the end of follow-up (ranged: 16.6% to 100%)., Conclusion: US-guided MWA may be a feasible and promising approach for symptomatic AWE.

To investigate the factors affecting the efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous microwave ablation (PMWA) for adenomyosis with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-A). Baseline data of patients with AUB-A who underwent US-guided PMWA treatment between October 2020 and October 2021, including demography characteristics, laboratory and imaging examination results were retrospectively analyzed. 3D reconstruction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was applied to quantitatively assess the local treatment responses, including ratio of non-perfusion volume to adenomyosis volume (NPVr), ablation rate of the endometrial-myometrial junction (EMJ), and surface area (SA) of the ablated part of the EMJ. Patients were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment, and divided into two groups: group with complete relief (CR), and group with partial relief (PR) or no relief (NR). Data were compared between them. Thirty-one patients were analyzed with a mean age of 38.7 ± 6.8 years (range: 24–48): 48.4% (15/31), 63.3% (19/30), and 65.5% (19/29) achieved CR at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. In univariate analysis, compared with the PR/NR group, serum CA125 levels were significantly lower in CR group at 3 months, while ablation rates of EMJ and SA of the ablated part of the EMJ were significantly higher at the three time points. Other baseline characteristics and NPVr did not differ between the two groups. Baseline CA125 and ablation rate of the EMJ and SA of the ablated part of the EMJ are associated with the outcome of AUB-A patients after US-guided PMWA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous microwave ablation (PMWA) for treating adenomyosis in the posterior uterine wall. Methods: Thirty‐six patients with symptomatic adenomyosis in the posterior uterine wall who had been subjected to PMWA were retrospectively enrolled in this study. 20 patients who had no ideal transabdominal puncture path due to the retroverted or retroflexed uterine position were treated with PMWA combined with Yu's uteropexy (Group 1). The other 16 patients were treated with PMWA only (Group 2). The non‐perfused volume (NPV) ratio, symptomatic relief rate, recurrence rate, changes in clinical symptom scores, economic cost, and complications were compared. Results: The mean NPV ratio for the 36 patients was 90.2±18.3%, and the percentage of patients who obtained complete relief of dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia was 81.3% (26/32), and 69.6% (16/23) respectively. The recurrence rate was 11.1% (4/36). No major complication was observed. Minor complications included lower abdominal pain, fever, vaginal discharge, nausea, and/or vomiting after ablation, with incidences of 55.6%, 41.7%, 47.2%, and 19.4% respectively. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in the median value of NPV ratio, symptomatic relief rate of dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, changes in clinical symptom scores, recurrence rate and economic cost between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: PMWA is an effective and safe treatment for adenomyosis in the posterior uterine wall. Advances in knowledge: This study focused on the ultrasound‐guided PMWA treatment for adenomyosis in the posterior uterine wall. Yu's uteropexy, a new ancillary technique allowing safe PMWA for deep posterior uterine wall lesions in retroverted uterus, expanded the indications of PMWA for symptomatic adenomyosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]