RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Despite various surgical and non-surgical strategies for abdominal wall endometriosis, the lack of definitive guidance on optimal treatment choice leads to clinical uncertainty. This review scrutinizes the safety and efficacy of abdominal wall endometriosis treatments to aid in decision-making. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from 1947 until December 2023. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive literature search identified studies that assessed both surgical and nonsurgical interventions, including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and microwave ablation (MWA). This review is registered in NIHR-PROSPERO (CRD 42023494969). Local tumor control (LTC), local pain relief (LPR) and adverse events (AE) were recorded. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: This review included 51 articles among 831 identified. All study designs were considered eligible for inclusion. A total of 2,674 patients are included: 2,219 patients (83%) undergoing surgery, and 455 (17%) undergoing percutaneous interventions (342 HIFU, 103 cryoablation, 1 RFA, 9 MWA). Follow-up length was 18 months in median, ranging from 1 to 235 months. Overall LTC rates ranged from 86% to 100%. Surgical interventions consistently demonstrated the highest rate of LTC with a median rate of 100%, and LPR with a median rate of 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.9-97.7). HIFU showed median LTC and LPR rates, respectively of 95.65% (95% CI, 87.7-99.9) and 76.1% (95% CI, 61.8-90.4); and cryoablation of 85.7% (95% CI, 66.0-99.9) and 79.2% (95% CI, 67.4-91.03). Minor AE were reported after surgery in 17.5% of patients (225/1284) including 15.9% (199/1284) of mesh implantation; 76.4% (239/313) after HIFU; and 8.7 % (9/103) after cryoablation. Severe AE were reported in 25 patients in the surgery group and 1 in the percutaneous group. CONCLUSION: The safety profile and efficacy of nonsurgical interventions support their clinical utility for management of abdominal wall endometriosis.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of virtual injection software (VIS) use during cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-guided prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on both patient radiation exposure and procedural time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved comparative retrospective study analyzed the treatment at a single institution of 131 consecutive patients from January 2020 to May 2022. Cone-beam CT was used with (Group 1, 77/131; 58.8%) or without VIS (Group 2, 54/131, 41.2%). Radiation exposure (number of digital subtraction angiography [DSA] procedures), dose area product (DAP), total air kerma (AK), peak skin dose (PSD), fluoroscopy time (FT), and procedure time (PT) were recorded. The influences of age, body mass index, radial access, and use of VIS were assessed. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis, VIS use (Group 1) showed reduction in the number of DSA procedures (8.6 ± 3.7 vs 16.8 ± 4.3; P < .001), DAP (110.4 Gy·cm2 ± 46.8 vs 140.5 Gy·cm2 ± 61; P < .01), AK (642 mGy ± 451 vs 1,150 mGy ± 637; P = .01), PSD (358 mGy ± 251 vs 860 mGy ± 510; P = .001), FT (35.6 minutes ± 15.4 vs 46.6 minutes ± 20; P = .001), and PT (94.6 minutes ± 41.3 vs 115.2 minutes ± 39.6, P = .005) compared to those in Group 2. In multivariate analysis, AK, PSD, FT, and PT reductions were associated with VIS use (P < .001, P < .001, P = .001, and P = .006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIS during PAE performed under cone-beam CT guidance led to significant reduction in patient radiation exposure and procedural time.