The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Midterm Clinical and First Reproductive Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Uterine Fibroid Embolization and Myomectomy
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the midterm results of a radiological and surgical approach to uterine fibroids. One hundred twenty-one women with reproductive plans who presented with an intramural fibroid(s) larger than 4 cm were randomly selected for either uterine artery embolization (UAE) or myomectomy. We compared the efficacy and safety of the two procedures and their impact on patient fertility. Fifty-eight embolizations and 63 myomectomies (42 laparoscopic, 21 open) were performed. One hundred eighteen patients have finished at least a 12-month follow-up; the mean follow-up in the entire study population was 24.9 months. Embolized patients underwent a significantly shorter procedure and required a shorter hospital stay and recovery period. They also presented with a lower CRP concentration on the second day after the procedure (p < 0.0001 for all parameters). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of technical success, symptomatic effectiveness, postprocedural follicle stimulating hormone levels, number of reinterventions for fibroid recurrence or regrowth, or complication rates. Forty women after myomectomy and 26 after UAE have tried to conceive, and of these we registered 50 gestations in 45 women. There were more pregnancies (33) and labors (19) and fewer abortions (6) after surgery than after embolization (17 pregnancies, 5 labors, 9 abortions) (p < 0.05). Obstetrical and perinatal results were similar in both groups, possibly due to the low number of labors after UAE to date. We conclude that UAE is less invasive and as symptomatically effective and safe as myomectomy, but myomectomy appears to have superior reproductive outcomes in the first 2 years after treatment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Uterine fibroid management: From the present to the future
Donnez, J., & Dolmans, M.-M. (2016) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw023 · Cited by 780
Uterine fibroids: current perspectives
Khan, A., Shehmar, M., & Gupta, J. (2014) · International Journal of Women's Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s51083 · Cited by 406
de Bruijn, A. M., Ankum, W. M., Reekers, J. A., Birnie, E., van der Kooij, S. M., Volkers, N. A., & Hehenkamp, W. J. K. (2016) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.051 · Cited by 391
Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids
Gupta, J. K., Sinha, A., Lumsden, M. A., & Hickey, M. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005073.pub4 · Cited by 269
The Burden of Uterine Fibroids for African-American Women: Results of a National Survey
Stewart, E. A., Nicholson, W. K., Bradley, L., & Borah, B. J. (2013) · Journal of Women's Health · doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4334 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Mara, M., Maskova, J., Fucikova, Z., Kuzel, D., Belsan, T., & Sosna, O.
- Venue
- CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
- Published
- 2007-10-18
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-85
- ISSN
- 0174-1551 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-086X
- OpenAlex
- W2078237173
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Midterm Clinical and First Reproductive Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Uterine Fibroid Embolization and Myomectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00270-007-9195-2
- The paper
- Mara, M., Maskova, J., Fucikova, Z., Kuzel, D., Belsan, T., & Sosna, O. (2008). Midterm Clinical and First Reproductive Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Uterine Fibroid Embolization and Myomectomy. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9195-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.