DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20215080
Published: 2021-12-28

Medical management versus surgical management in fibroid uterus

Vilas Namdev Kurude, Sneha Shekharreddy Mutyapwar

Abstract


Background: Uterine fibroids (leiomyomas) are most common tumours of the uterine smooth muscles, appear to increase in incidence with age during reproductive years, with a peak in incidence between 35 to 40 years. Signs and symptoms of uterine fibroids include heavy or prolonged menstrual bleeding, pain and pregnancy complications. Current management strategies mainly involve surgical interventions, but choice of treatment is guided by patient’s age and desire to preserve fertility or avoid ‘radical’ surgery such as hysterectomy.

Methods: It is the prospective observational study conducted in inpatients of department of OBGY at tertiary care hospital, admitted during the period of June 2019 to May 2021. Outcome measured in terms of relief of symptoms, decrease in size of fibroid, requiring subsequent surgery, quality of life, blood transfusion requirements, length of stay in hospital, successful pregnancies

Results: Of patients treated with ulipristal, 78.57% had improved quality of life, in patients treated with leuprolide, 57.14% showed improved quality of life, with mifepristone 80% patients showed improved quality of life and with LNG 100% patients responded to it. All patients treated surgically, showed relief of symptoms.

Conclusions: Medical line of management is best for patients in younger age group, small size fibroid, desire for future fertility. Uterus sparing option like myomectomy is done in patients not responding to medical line of management and desire for future fertility. Hysterectomy is definitive line of management for patients with fibroid uterus.


Keywords


Fibroid, Mifepristone, Ulipristal, LNG, Leuprolide, Hysterectomy, Myomectomy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Solomon LA, Schimp VL, Ali-Fehmi R, Diamond MP, Munkarah AR. Clinical update of smooth muscle tumors of the uterus. J minimally invasive gynecol. 2005;12(5):401-8.

Guarnaccia MM, Rein MS. Traditional surgical approaches to uterine fibroids: abdominal myomectomy and hysterectomy. Clin obstetr gynecol. 2001;44(2):385-400.

Sankaran S, Manyonda IT. Medical management of fibroids. Best Practice Res Clin Obstetr Gynaecol. 2008;22(4):655-76.

Parker WH. Etiology, symptomatology, and diagnosis of uterine myomas. Fertility and sterility. 2007;87(4):725-36.

Donnez J, Jadoul P. What are the implications of myomas on fertility? A need for a debate? Human reproduct. 2002;17(6):1424-30.

Dolmans MM, Donnez J, Fellah L. Uterine fibroid management: Today and tomorrow. J Obstetrics Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(7):1222-9.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Alternatives to hysterectomy in the management of leiomyomas. Obstetr gynecol. 2008;112(2 Pt 1):387-400.

Levy BS. Modern management of uterine fibroids. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2008;87(8):812-23.

Courtoy GE, Donnez J, Marbaix E, Dolmans MM. In vivo mechanisms of uterine myoma volume reduction with ulipristal acetate treatment. Fertility and sterility. 2015;104(2):426-34.

Chillik C, Acosta A. The role of LHRH agonists and antagonists. Reproductive Bio Med Online. 2001;2(2):120-8.

Xiao B, Zeng T, Wu S, Sun H, Xiao N. Effect of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device on hormonal profile and menstrual pattern after long-term use. Contraception. 1995;51(6):359-65.

Harrison-Woolrych M, Raine JM. Levonorgestrel intrauterine device can be left in place for five years. Bmj. 1998;317(7151):149.

Luukkainen T. Levonorgestrel‐Releasing Intrauterine Device. Ann New York Academy Sci. 1991;626(1):43-9.

Farquhar CM, Harvey SA, Yu Y, Sadler L, Stewart AW. A prospective study of 3 years of outcomes after hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy. Ame j obstetric gynecol. 2006;194(3):711-7.