[Clinical value of focused ultrasound ablation surgery in the treatment of abdominal wall endometriosis].

Objective: To explore the effectiveness and safety of focused ultrasound ablation surgery (FUAS) for abdominal wall endometriosis. Methods: From November 2019 to October 2022, a total of 34 patients with abdominal wall endometriosis who underwent FUAS were collected, and their clinical features, imaging features, intraoperative treatment and side effects after treatment were analyzed retrospectively, and the improvement of symptoms and re-intervention were followed up. Results: (1) Characteristics of clinical data: the average age of 34 patients with abdominal wall endometriosis was (32.8±3.8) years old. The largest diameter of the lesion was 48 mm, and the median lesion diameter was 24 mm. Thirty cases (88%, 30/34) had moderate to severe periodic pain in abdominal incision before FUAS. All patients were diagnosed by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, including 19 cases (56%, 19/34) of superficial type, 8 cases (24%, 8/34) of intermediate type and 7 cases (21%, 7/34) of deep type. (2) FUAS treatment parameters: ablation was completed with average operation time of (64±18) minutes, average sonication time was (385±108) s, (103±11) W of average power, (38 819±16 309) J of average total energy, the average treatment area volume of (3.11±1.42) cm3, and (377.79±106.34) s/h of average treatment intensity. (3) Efficiency: the pain of patients after FUAS was significantly relieved, and the pain scores of patients after 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after FUAS were significantly decreased (Z=-4.66, -5.13, -5.11 and -4.91, all P<0.01). One year after FUAS, the near relief and effective pain relief rate was 74% (25/34), and the clinical effective rate was 85% (29/34). Five patients recurred after one year, including 3 patients who underwent abdominal wall endometriosis lesion resection and 2 patients who received drug treatment. One month after FUAS, the size of the lesion did not change significantly compared with that before FUAS (P>0.05), and the size of the lesion decreased significantly after FUAS at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year (Z=-2.15, -2.67 and -3.41, all P<0.05). It has no difference in pain relief among different types (P>0.05), but has significant difference in focus reduction among three types (P<0.01). (4) Safety: there were 34 cases (100%, 34/34) of skin burning sensation, 19 cases (56%, 19/34) of pain in the treatment area and 2 cases (6%, 2/34) of hematuria. All patients got better after corresponding treatments. Conclusion: FUAS is safe and effective for the treatment of abdominal wall endometriosis, which has clinical application value.

[Pregnancy outcomes in patients with adenomyosis with fertility requirements: retrospective analysis of clinical data from real world].

Objective: To retrospectively analyze the pregnancy outcomes of patients with adenomyosis requiring fertility in a single center under real world condition. Methods: From June 2015 to May 2020, 231 cases of pregnancy complicated with adenomyosis diagnosed by ultrasound with fertility requirements were treated in the Women's and Children's Hospital Affiliated to Qingdao University with complete clinical data. And they were divided into three groups according to the treatment of adenomyosis before pregnancy: expectation group, drug group and operation group. The relevant data before pregnancy of the three groups were analyzed, and the pregnancy outcomes of the patients were summarized. According to whether the early pregnancy was treated with medication, the patients who were naturally conceived without symptoms of threatened abortion were divided into observation group and fetus protection group, and the pregnancy outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: (1) Compared with the expectation group, the ages of patients in the drug group and the operation group were larger [(31.5±1.8) vs (34.1±3.7) vs (36.9±3.6) years old], and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Only 9 patients (11.5%, 9/78) had clinical symptoms in the expectation group, while the patients in the drug group and the operation group had a higher proportion of dysmenorrhea and increased menstrual volume. The uterine volume of the drug group and the operation group were larger than that of the expectation group [(151±46) vs (166±27) vs (97±18) cm3], the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). 78.6% (33/42) of the operation group were focal adenomyosis. The proportion of natural pregnancy in the expectation group was 97.4% (76/78), and in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer was mainly used in the drug group and the operation group. (2) The abortion rates of the three groups were 48.7% (26/111), 4/17, 67.5% (27/78) respectively. Compared with the drug group and the operation group, the preterm birth rate was lower [55.9% (33/111) vs 11/17 vs 12.5% (5/78)] and the natural delivery rate was higher [44.1% (26/111) vs 4/17 vs 67.5% (27/78)] in the expectation group. (3) There were 89 cases of spontaneous pregnancy without threatened abortion symptoms, including 31 cases in the observation group and 58 cases in the fetus protection group. Compared with the observation group, the abortion rate of patients in the fetus protection group was lower [41.9% (13/31) vs 34.5% (20/58)], and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions: Patients with adenomyosis who have fertility requirements should be comprehensively evaluated and individualized treatment plans should be given. Pregnancy patients with adenomyosis have a high rate of miscarriage, and they should be included in the management of high-risk pregnant women. Active fetal protection treatment during early pregnancy might improve pregnancy outcomes.