Modifiable prognostic factors in uterine fibroid development: a systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Many risk factors in uterine fibroid development have been identified, but women and their physicians are less aware of the influence of lifestyle on uterine fibroid development. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate and summarize modifiable prognostic factors associated with uterine fibroid development. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase were searched for relevant articles according to PRISMA guidelines. References from included articles were screened and when relevant also included. Human in vivo studies on modifiable factors in fibroid development were included. Studies on non-modifiable factors and treatment, in vitro studies and animal studies were excluded. 607 articles were screened and 33 articles were included. Two independent investigators collected data from the report. RESULTS: The strongest risk factor for fibroid development was a high BMI, while the strongest protective factors were a high fruit and vegetable intake and high vitamin D intake. CONCLUSION: More high-quality studies are necessary to better understand the impact of the abovementioned factors as well as the role they play in the growth of already existing fibroids.

Uterine fibroid development is multifactorial. Various non-modifiable and modifiable factors have been linked to uterine fibroid development. Modifiable factors are controllable by patients themselves. We performed a systematic review to investigate these modifiable factors. We screened 607 articles from 2 databases (PubMed and Embase) of which 33 were included in the review. We only included clinical studies on humans. A high body mass index (BMI) is found to be a modifiable risk factor for uterine fibroid development. Protective of uterine fibroid development are high fruit and vegetable intake and high vitamin D intake or sun exposure. More research is needed to investigate the applicability of these findings in clinical practice and to investigate the influence on the growth of already existing uterine fibroids.

Procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy (PROSECCO trial): A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopic resection is the first-choice treatment for symptomatic type 0 and 1 fibroids. Traditionally, this was performed under general anesthesia. Over the last decade, surgical procedures are increasingly being performed in an outpatient setting under procedural sedation and analgesia. However, studies evaluating safety and effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation are lacking. This study aims to investigate whether hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol is noninferior to hysteroscopic myomectomy under general anesthesia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled noninferiority trial conducted in 14 university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2021. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, maximum number of 3 type 0 or 1 fibroids, maximum fibroid diameter 3.5 cm, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2, and having sufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language. Women with clotting disorders or with severe anemia (Hb < 5.0 mmol/L) were excluded. Women were randomized using block randomization with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, between hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with propofol or under general anesthesia (GA). Primary outcome was the percentage of complete resections, assessed on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively by a sonographer blinded for the treatment arm and surgical outcome. Secondary outcomes were the surgeon's judgment of completeness of procedure, menstrual blood loss, uterine fibroid related and general quality of life, pain, recovery, hospitalization, complications, and surgical reinterventions. Follow-up period was 1 year. The risk difference between both treatment arms was estimated, and a Farrington-Manning test was used to determine the p-value for noninferiority (noninferiority margin 7.5% of incomplete resections). Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, including a per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome. A total of 209 women participated in the study and underwent hysteroscopic myomectomy with PSA (n = 106) or GA (n = 103). Mean age was 45.1 [SD 6.4] years in the PSA group versus 45.0 [7.7] years in the GA group. For 98/106 women in the PSA group and 89/103 women in the GA group, data were available for analysis of the primary outcome. Hysteroscopic resection was complete in 86/98 women (87.8%) in the PSA group and 79/89 women (88.8%) in the GA group (risk difference -1.01%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.36 to 8.34; noninferiority, P = 0.09). No serious anesthesiologic complications occurred, and conversion from PSA to GA was not required. During the follow-up period, 15 serious adverse events occurred (overnight admissions). All were unrelated to the intervention studied. Main limitations were the choice of primary outcome and the fact that our study proved to be underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of PSA for completeness of resection was not shown, though there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life. In this study, hysteroscopic myomectomy for type 0 and 1 fibroids with PSA compared to GA was safe and led to shorter hospitalization. These results can be used for counseling patients by gynecologists and anesthesiologists. Based on these findings, we suggest that hysteroscopic myomectomies can be performed under PSA in an outpatient setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR 5357; registration date: 11 August 2015; Date of initial participant enrollment: 18 February 2016).