BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McLucas, B
Right arrow Articles by Dalrymple, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McLucas, B
Right arrow Articles by Dalrymple, J
British Journal of Radiology 75 (2002),122-126 © 2002 The British Institute of Radiology

Full paper

Outcomes following unilateral uterine artery embolisation

B McLucas, MD 1 R A Reed 4 S Goodwin 2 A Rappaport 5 L Adler 3 R Perrella 2 and J Dalrymple 3

Departments of 1Obstetrics and Gynecology and 2Radiology, University of California at Los Angeles, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 3Tower-Century Imaging, Century City Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, 4Department of Radiology, Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena, CA and 5Department of Radiology, Long Beach Memorial Hospital, Long Beach, CA, USA

Correspondence: Bruce McLucas, MD, 100 UCLA Medical Plaza, Suite 310, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

Uterine artery embolisation has been described as successful only when both arteries are embolised. However, results in patients with one congenitally absent or previously ligated artery are unknown. Women suffering from symptomatic uterine myomata were treated at a university teaching hospital, a community hospital and an outpatient surgery centre. Retrospective review of patient response to embolisation was assessed by chart review and questionnaire. Uterine and dominant fibroid size response was assessed by comparing pre- and post-embolisation ultrasound examinations. This study analysed three patient groups within the general population: those who underwent unilateral embolisation because of technical failure, those who ultimately underwent bilateral embolisation after initial technical failure and those who underwent unilateral embolisation because of an absent uterine artery. 12 patients underwent unilateral embolisation, 4 of whom underwent this procedure because of an absent uterine artery. Three of these four patients had a congenitally absent uterine artery arising from the internal iliac artery and all three experienced successful outcomes. The fourth patient had a previously ligated internal iliac artery and her symptoms worsened after the procedure. Eight patients had unilateral embolisation due to technical failure. Five of these patients underwent a subsequent procedure during which the contralateral uterine artery was embolised. Four of these five patients had successful outcomes and one was lost to follow-up. Another of the eight patients suffered an arterial injury leading to technical failure, and was lost to follow-up. Of the two remaining patients with unilateral technical failure, only one had a successful outcome. This study concluded that patients who undergo unilateral embolisation for technical reasons should be offered a second embolisation procedure shortly after the initial procedure. Patients with a congenitally absent uterine artery may respond with similar success to those who underwent bilateral embolisation. In contrast, the patient with a previously ligated internal iliac artery failed. The numbers in this study are too small for statistical analysis and subsequent studies should be performed to confirm these findings.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2002 by the British Institute of Radiology.