Current and Prospective Treatment of Adenomyosis

Abstract

(1) Background: Adenomyosis is a poorly understood entity which makes it difficult to standardize treatment. In this paper we review and compare the currently approved medical and surgical treatments of adenomyosis and present the evidence behind them. (2) Methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify papers related to the different treatments of adenomyosis. The search was limited to the English language. Articles were divided into medical and surgical treatments. (3) Results: Several treatment options have been studied and were found to be effective in the treatment of adenomyosis. (4) Conclusions: Further randomized controlled trials are needed to compare treatment modalities and establish a uniform treatment algorithm for adenomyosis.

Full text

Journal of
Clinical Medicine
Review
Current and Prospective Treatment of Adenomyosis
Fady I. Sharara 1,2, Mira H. Kheil 3, Anis Feki 4, Sara Rahman 1, Jordan S. Klebanoff 5, Jean Marc Ayoubi 6,7
and Gaby N. Moawad 1, *


Citation: Sharara, F.I..; Kheil, M.H..;
Feki, A.; Rahman, S.; Klebanoff, J.S..;
Ayoubi, J.M.; Moawad, G.N. Current
and Prospective Treatment of
Adenomyosis. J. Clin. Med. 2021,10,
3410. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jcm10153410
Academic Editor: Eyal Sheiner
Received: 7 July 2021
Accepted: 29 July 2021
Published: 30 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The George Washington University Hospital, Washington,
DC 20037, USA; Fsharara@aol.com (F.I.S.); sara.rahman@gmail.com (S.R.)
2Virginia Center for Reproductive Medicine, 11150 Sunset Hills Rd., Suite 100, Reston, VA 20190, USA
3Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut 11-0236, Lebanon; yousef.hibaoui@unifr.ch
4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cantonal Hospital Fribourg, 1702 Fribourg, Switzerland;
Anis.Feki@h-fr.ch
5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Main Line Health, Wynnewood, PN 19096, USA;
jsk5068@gmail.com
6
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hopital Foch, 92150 Suresnes, France;
jm.ayoubi@hopital-foch.com
7Faculty of Medicine, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Université Paris-Saclay,
78000 Versailles, France
*Correspondence: gnmoawad@gmail.com
Abstract:
(1) Background: Adenomyosis is a poorly understood entity which makes it difficult
to standardize treatment. In this paper we review and compare the currently approved medical
and surgical treatments of adenomyosis and present the evidence behind them. (2) Methods: A
PubMed search was conducted to identify papers related to the different treatments of adenomyosis.
The search was limited to the English language. Articles were divided into medical and surgical
treatments. (3) Results: Several treatment options have been studied and were found to be effective
in the treatment of adenomyosis. (4) Conclusions: Further randomized controlled trials are needed to
compare treatment modalities and establish a uniform treatment algorithm for adenomyosis.
Keywords: adenomyosis; fertility; medical treatment; surgical treatment
1. Introduction
Adenomyosis is defined as abnormal implantation of endometrial tissue into the my-
ometrium associated with enlarging of the uterus [
1
]. The exact etiology of adenomyosis
remains unclear with some theories suggesting invagination of the endometrium into
the myometrium and others favoring metaplasia of stem cells [
2
]. Newer theories on the
pathophysiology of endometriosis may be leading the way to changing our understanding
of adenomyosis as well. Endometriosis has been described as “a fibrotic condition in
which endometrial stroma and epithelium can be identified” [
3
]. The hypothesis is that
genetic-epigenetic changes play a role in intracellular aromatase activity and result in
intracellular estrogen production leading to and inflammatory, fibrotic endometrial-like
tissue outside the uterus [
4
]. Clinically, adenomyosis commonly manifests with debilitating
symptoms including menorrhagia, chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and infertility, ne-
cessitating treatment [
5
]. Due to the poorly understood pathophysiology and nature of this
disease, management has not been standardized and there are currently no guidelines that
prioritize one treatment modality over the other [
6
]. Throughout the years, adenomyosis
has been managed both medically and surgically, sometimes sacrificing the fertility of
the patient [
7
]. Until recently, hysterectomy has been the only definitive treatment for
patients with adenomyosis who have completed child-bearing [
8
]. More recently, other
treatment options have been evaluated. Adenomyosis, like endometriosis, is an estrogen
responsive condition [
9
]. This has been the basis for medical treatments that aim to regress
the adenomyotic lesions by controlling the hormonal medium [
9
]. On the other hand,
J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153410 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcm

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 2 of 12
surgical approaches, other than total hysterectomies, include physically removing tissue
where pathology is present, or disrupting the blood flow to the affected area [
10
]. Surgical
techniques that preserve fertility have been developed to avoid hysterectomies in younger
women [
11
]. There are currently no agreed-upon guidelines to follow when managing
endometriosis. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends using
a hormonal intrauterine device as first line treatment for adenomyosis [
12
]. However, to
date, management of adenomyosis remains highly individualized depending on the age,
symptoms, and future desire for fertility. In this paper, we review the current treatment
options for adenomyosis, and compare their efficacies in controlling the condition.
2. Methods
This is a narrative review. A PubMed search was conducted using the terms “adeno-
myosis” and “treatment” to identify the different treatment modalities for adenomyosis.
Further detailed searches were conducted for each of the treatments separately using
the keywords “adenomyosis”, “medical treatment”, “surgical treatment”, “non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory”, “combined oral contraceptives”, “gonadotropin-releasing hormone ag-
onist”, “gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist”, “danazol”, “dienogest”, “aromatase
inhibitor”, “ulipristal acetate”, “antiplatelet therapy”, “dopamine agonist”, “oxytocin
antagonist”, “hysterectomy”, “uterus-sparing resection”, “uterine artery embolization”,
“radiofrequency ablation” and “high-intensity focused ultrasound”. The search was limited
to English and included articles from 2000 till May 2021. Abstracts were screened to select
relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, case controls, cohorts,
case series, case reports as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Exclusion criteria
were any language other than English, letters to editors and video articles.
3. Reslts
The initial search yielded a total of 2807 articles. After limiting to the English language
and to the year 2000 onwards, this number decreased to 2125. The papers were screened,
duplicates were removed and the relevant articles to our research question were selected.
As a result, a total of 80 articles pertaining to the different treatments of adenomyosis were
included in this review.
3.1. Medical Management
3.1.1. Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatories (NSAIDs)
In patients presenting with dysmenorrhea, NSAIDs have been proven to control the
pain by decreasing the production of prostaglandins [
13
]. These medications provide only
symptomatic treatment and have no effect on the adenomyotic process.
3.1.2. Oral Contraceptive Pills and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) Agonists
Combined oral contraceptive pills have been proven to be effective in the treatment
of dysmenorrhea [
14
]. Due to the lack of trials on patients with adenomyosis, data has
been extracted from trials on other diseases with concomitant adenomyosis, such as en-
dometriosis and leiomyoma uteri [
15
]. Suppressive hormonal therapies have been used
to temporarily induce regression of adenomyosis and improve symptoms [
16
]. In a case
series, Mansouri et al. showed regression of adenomyosis on magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) after treatment with a course of oral contraceptive pills in one patient and resolu-
tion of adenomyosis on imaging and of chronic pelvic pain clinically after treatment with
leuprolide acetate, a GnRH agonist, in 3 other patients [
17
]. In a systematic review of
RCTs by Brown et al., GnRH agonist therapy was found to be superior to no treatment
and placebo, but there was no statistical difference between GnRH agonist and danazol for
dysmenorrhea, or GnRH agonist and levonorgestrel for overall pain [
18
]. More adverse
effects were reported in the GnRH agonist group, which might be a factor in limiting its
use [18].

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 3 of 12
3.1.3. GnRH Antagonists
There are two case reports on the use of GnRH antagonists for treating adenomyosis.
Donnez et al. reported a case of a patient who was prescribed Linzagolix, a GnRH antago-
nist for adenomyosis after failing a course of ulipristal acetate [
19
]. Linzagolix significantly
reduced adenomyotic lesion size and improved the patient’s dysmenorrhea and quality of
life [
19
]. Similarly, Kavoussi et al. reported a case of a 41 year old patient who presented
with a fundal adenomyoma that regressed in size after treatment with Elagolix, another
GnRH antagonist [
20
]. The patient also reported improvement in her clinical symptoms
and resolution of her pelvic pain while on this regimen [
20
]. These observations make
it worthy to further look into GnRH antagonists as a prospective treatment option for
adenomyosis.
3.1.4. Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intra-Uterine Device (LNG-IUD)
Levonorgestrel IUDs were originally designed for long term contraception but have
been used for their other non-contraceptive health benefits, such as control of dysmen-
orrhea and menorrhagia [
21
]. An open, randomized, observational study of 95 women
evaluated the efficacy of levonorgestrel IUD after endometrial resection for treatment of
menorrhagia caused by adenomyosis, and found a significantly higher rate of amenorrhea
in the IUD group compared to control (100% vs. 9% respectively, p< 0.001) [
22
]. LNG-IUD
has also been shown to be a promising alternative for hysterectomy in the treatment of
adenomyosis [
23
]. The LNG-IUD can help in the management of adenomyosis by both
decidualization and atrophy of the endometrium and by downregulating estrogen recep-
tors due to high progestin release [
24
,
25
]. In a study by Ozdegirmenci et al., LNG-IUD
use was compared to hysterectomy in adenomyosis and hemoglobin levels measured after
treatment with either modality at 6 months then at 1 year were found to be comparable
across both groups [
23
]. In an RCT, Shaaban et al. found the LNG-IUD to be superior
to treatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill in reduction of pain in patients
with adenomyosis (6.23 to 1.68 in the IUD group vs. 6.55 to 3.9 in the OCP group) [
26
].
Although collectively more significant in the IUD group, bleeding pattern improved in both
treatment arms portrayed by a decrease in the mean number of bleeding days per month
(from 9.81 to 2.63 in IUD group vs. from 9.97 to 5.52 in the OCP group), decreased number
of sanitary pads used per day (6.29 to 2 in the IUD group vs. 6.13 to 3.58 in the OCP group),
and an increased number of bleeding-free days at 6 months of treatment (19.32 to 25.39 in
the IUD group vs. 19.1 to 23.65 in the OCP group) [
26
]. Uterine volume was also shown
to decrease in both treatment arms but more significantly in the LNG-IUD group (10.23
to 7.63 mL with the use of IUD versus 10.42 to 8.32 in the OCP group) [
26
]. In a recent
systematic review by Abbass et al., LNG-IUD was found to be a highly effective option for
the management of adenomyosis [27]. The overall effect estimates showed that the use of
LNG-IUD leads to significant reduction of pain scores starting at 3 months (standard mean
difference [SMD]
−
1.91, p= 0.002) and persisting at 36 months (SMD
−
3.81, p< 0.001).
Similar trends were noted when assessing heavy menstrual bleeding (SMD
−
3.58, p< 0.001
at 3 months, SMD
−
2.32, p< 0.001 at 36 months), and uterine volume (SMD
−
0.47, p< 0.001
at 6 months, SMD
−
0.42, p< 0.001 at 36 months) [
27
]. Hemoglobin levels were also shown
to significantly increase after treatment with the hormonal IUD at 6 months (SMD 1.71,
p< 0.001) continuing till 12 months after insertion (SMD 1.6, p= 0.004) [27].
3.1.5. Danazol
Danazol is an androgenic hormone used in the treatment of endometriosis to shrink the
ectopic endometrial tissue. Igarashi et al. extended the use of this hormone in adenomyosis
and tested out the use of a danazol-loaded IUD in patients with adenomyosis [
25
]. In
3 different trials, the danazol IUD was inserted in adenomyotic uteri and was found to
improve dysmenorrhea and decrease myometrial thickness, with significantly less side
effects given the lower serum concentrations compared to oral danazol [
28
–
30
]. Shawki

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 4 of 12
and Igarashi also showed a possible positive effect on improved fertility after removal of
danazol IUD [30].
3.1.6. Dienogest
Dienogest is a selective synthetic oral progestin that has been shown to improve
primary and secondary dysmenorrhea [
31
]. In a pilot study by Hirata et al., patients with
adenomyosis were administered oral Dienogest on days 2–5 of menstruation and followed
up every 8 weeks after beginning treatment [
32
]. Their results revealed a statistically signif-
icant decrease in the visual analog scale scores of dysmenorrhea (79.6 to 9.6), chronic pain
(51.6 to 9.2), and dyspareunia (27.8 to 12.5) [
32
]. However, hemoglobin levels were similar
(11.6 to 12.3) and total uterine size and adenomyotic lesions size did not differ significantly
before and after treatment (285.4 to 259.8 and 116.9 to 111.9, respectively) [
32
]. Adverse
effects reported include worsening anemia due to metrorrhagia and mild hot flashes [
32
]. In
another RCT of 67 patients by Osuga et al., patients who received oral dienogest treatment
for adenomyosis reported a significant decrease in pain scores (
−3.8 vs. −1.4,
p< 0.001)
and visual analog scales (
−
58.4 vs.
−
20.6, p< 0.001) but no significant difference in uterine
size reduction (20 vs. 9.6, p= 0.103) [
33
]. The most frequent adverse reactions reported were
irregular uterine bleeding and hot flashes [
33
]. Neriishi et al. conducted a retrospective
cohort to address the tolerability of dienogest use for more than 2 years and found that long
term use of dienogest may be associated with a decrease in uterine size (38.7 to 26.9 cm
2
,
p< 0.01), suggesting that it may be a tolerable alternative treatment option for patients
with adenomyosis [34].
When compared to triptorelin acetate, which is a GnRH agonist, in a clinical trial
by Fawzy et al., dienogest was inferior in decreasing uterine size (p= 0.4822 compared
to p= 0.0108), and in achieving amenorrhea (21.2% compared to 94.4%). However, both
treatments demonstrated comparable significant reductions in pelvic pain (21.7 in dienogest
group vs. 24.5 in triptorelin, p= 0.5076), and dyspareunia (20.7 in dienogest vs. 25.8
in triptorelin, p= 0.3899) [
35
]. In an RCT, Hassanin et al. compared dienorgest and
OCP use in adenomyosis and found both treatments to be effective, but dienogest was
superior in decreasing pain scores (3.21 vs. 4.92) and had a higher rate of side effects [
36
].
Furthermore, when combined with microwave endometrial ablation, dienogest has also
shown a statistically significant improvement in the visual analog scale and hemoglobin
levels [37].
3.1.7. Aromatase Inhibitors
Aromatase inhibitors work by halting the production of estrogen, which explains their
use in adenomyosis to suppress the hormonal medium which favors the progression of
the disease. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Badawi et al., GnRH agonists and
aromatase inhibitors were shown to be equally effective in reducing adenomyosis and
improving clinical symptoms [
38
]. Patients with adenomyosis were randomly allocated
to receive letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor or goserelin, a GnRH agonist, and outcomes
were reported as uterine and adenomyoma volumes at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Results showed
a comparable decrease in uterine volumes (20.1, 15.4 and 13 cm
3
in letrozole group vs. 21.7,
15.1 and 11.7 cm
3
in goserelin group, at 4, 8 and 12 weeks respectively), and adenomyoma
volumes across both groups suggesting that aromatase inhibitors are as effective as GnRH
agonists in reducing progression and improving symptoms of adenomyosis [
38
]. When
combined together, aromatase inhibitors and GnRH analogues seemed to reduce uterine
volume by around 60% at 8 weeks as shown on imaging in a case report by Kimura
et al. [39].
3.1.8. Ulipristal Acetate
Ulipristal is a potent progesterone receptor modulator. Its effect in adenomyosis how-
ever is inconsistent. In a retrospective, observational study by Gracia et al., premenopausal
women with concomitant adenomyosis and uterine myomas were compared to a group of

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 5 of 12
patients with myomas only after treatment with 12 weeks course of ulipristal acetate [
40
].
Amenorrhea (90.4% vs. 77.6%, p= 0.0017), optimal bleeding control (90.2% vs. 73.8%,
p= 0.028
) and self-reported visual analog scale scores (p= 0.017), were significantly higher
in the group of patients with adenomyosis suggesting that ulipristal acetate might be a
good treatment option for this condition [
40
]. Similar results were reported in an RCT
by Capmas et al. in which 30 women with adenomyosis were treated with ulipristal and
compared to a control group of 10 patients with the condition treated with placebo [
41
].
95.24% of patients in the ulipristal group had a pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC)
score of less than 75 after treatment, compared to >100 before treatment (p< 0.01) [
41
]. A
significant decrease in pain was also noticed in the ulipristal group at 13 weeks (p< 0.01),
but no significant difference in pain or PBAC score was found at 6 months [
41
]. In contrast,
there have been some reports of worsening of adenomyosis with the use of ulipristal. In an
observational study by Conway et al., 6 women treated with ulipristal by an external physi-
cian for an erroneously presumed diagnosis of fibroids were found to have adenomyosis
after reporting an increase in pelvic pain post-treatment [
42
]. Enhancement of adenomyotic
features on ultrasound after treatment was also noted when compared to the external
scans done at diagnosis [
42
]. A similar recent study was also published by Calderon et al.
showing progression of adenomyosis after treatment with ulipristal for concurrent fibroids
in 12 out of 15 patients (80%) who had adenomyotic features on pre-treatment MRIs and
development of novel adenomyosis in 15 out of 57 patients (26.3%) with no pre-treatment
evidence of adenomyosis on MRI [
43
]. This data suggests that ulipristal acetate could
enhance progression or provoke emergence of adenomyosis. Adverse effects of ulipristal
acetate treatment are amenorrhea, weight gain, fatigue, abdominal discomfort, decreased
menstrual flow, dizziness, facial flushing, dry eyes, headache, breast discomfort, and in-
creased vaginal discharge [
44
]. Liver injury requiring the need for liver transplantation has
been reported as an adverse effect of this drug as well, which led to its withdrawal from
the European market, limiting the accessibility of this drug in the region [45].
3.1.9. Antiplatelet Therapy
A study on mice by Zhu et al. suggested that antiplatelet therapy suppressed my-
ometrial infiltration, improved generalized hyperalgesia and reduced uterine contractility
in mice in which adenomyosis has been induced [
46
]. More studies are needed to evalu-
ate the role of antiplatelets on adenomyosis therapy and as far as we know there are no
human data.
3.1.10. Dopamine Agonists
The effect of bromocriptine, a dopamine agonist and prolactin inhibitor, has been
evaluated in women diagnosed with adenomyosis in 2 studies by Andersson et al. [
42
,
43
].
The effect of prolactin is unclear in the pathogenesis of adenomyosis but prolactin and its
receptors seem to increase in adenomyotic tissue which suggests an association between the
hormone and the disease [
47
]. A pilot study by Andersson et al. evaluated treatment with
vaginal bromocriptine for 9 months in 19 patients with adenomyosis. Women who received
vaginal bromocriptine therapy reported significantly lower 9 months scores on PBAC
(baseline 349 vs. 9-month mark 233, p= 0.003), visual analog scale (5 vs. 2.5, p< 0.001),
endometriosis health profile (EHP) core pain (15.9 vs. 3.4, p= 0.029), EHP core self-image
(41.7 vs. 25, p= 0.048), symptom severity score (60 vs. 44, p< 0.001), and higher health-
related quality of life scores (57 vs. 72, p< 0.001) [
48
]. In another study Andersson et al.
also evaluated bromocriptine using imaging. They showed a thinner maximal junctional
zone (8.5 vs. 7.9 mm, p= 0.02) at 6 months on ultrasound but results were not significant
on MRI (16 vs. 15.5 mm, p= 0.81) [
49
]. Asymmetric wall thickening was seen in 72% of
patients on at baseline and only in 33% at 6 months post treatment. No changes were noted
in irregular endometrial-myometrial border, presence of fan-shaped shadowing, cystic
changes, striations, hyperechogenic islands or lesion extension [49].

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 6 of 12
3.1.11. Oxytocin Antagonists
Oxytocin antagonists are being investigated for the use in adenomyosis treatment
because overexpression of oxytocin receptor has been demonstrated in uteri with adeno-
myosis [
50
]. In a phase I trial, Epelsiban, a selective oxytocin receptor antagonist, was
tested on a population of healthy women and was found to be well tolerated with no
significant safety concerns [
51
]. Further trials on patients with adenomyosis are needed to
evaluate the efficacy.
3.2. Surgical & Procedural Management (for Diffuse or Adenomyoma Specify)
3.2.1. Hysterectomy
Historically, hysterectomy was considered the definitive diagnostic and therapeutic
approach to adenomyosis given that it removes the source of pathology. However, with
the increasing numbers of younger patients with adenomyosis, treatments that preserve
fertility emerged to avoid surgical removal of the uterus [
5
]. It is currently an acceptable
treatment option for when other, more conservative therapies have failed. The cervix can
be retained if no cervical patholy necessitates its removal as a supracervical hysterectomy
has not been shown to increase the risk of symptom persistence when compared to a total
hysterectomy in patients with adenomyosis [52].
3.2.2. Uterus-Sparing Resection
Uterus-sparing surgical approaches were developed for the treatment of adenomyosis.
These methods are primarily based on the principle of removing the diseased tissue to de-
crease uterine size and improve clinical symptoms. Wood et al. used conservative surgical
techniques to treat 14 patients with adenomyosis, and reported marked improvement of
menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea in 4 of 7 patients after endometrial resection, 3 of 4 after
myometrial reduction, and all 3 who underwent myometrial excision [
53
]. Saremi et al.
investigated a novel technique of adenomyomectomy in 103 women with adenomyosis
who wished to preserve fertility. Post-surgical treatment, 65% of the patients experienced a
decrease in abnormal uterine bleeding and 41% reported a decrease in dysmenorrhea [
54
].
In another study by Shu et al., outcomes of wedge-shaped resection of uterine adenomyosis
were analyzed in 15 patients. This procedure was shown to be safe and effective in reduc-
ing menorrhagia and alleviating the extent dysmenorrhea [
55
]. A systematic review by
Grimbizis et al. found that uterine-sparing operative treatment are feasible and efficacious
in treatment of adenomyosis, such that complete excision reduced the dysmenorrhea rate
by 82%, controlled menorrhagia by 68.8%, and increased pregnancy rate to 60.5% [
56
].
After partial excision, dysmenorrhea reduction, menorrhagia control, and pregnancy rates
were 81.8%, 50% and 46.9%, respectively [
56
]. In another systematic review by Younes et al.,
25 to 80% of patients had reduction in menorrhagia and 50 to 94.7% had pain improvement
after complete excision [
57
]. After incomplete excision, 40% reported improvement in
menorrhagia and 55–94% had pain improvement [
57
]. In non-excisional techniques such
as endometrial ablation and myometrial electrocoagulation, a comparable proportion of 57
to 86.6% of patients had pain control and 81.3 to 98.4% had bleeding control. Recurrence
rate was estimated to be 9% in complete excision, 19% in partial excision, and 32.5% in
non-excisional techniques [
57
]. Partial resection combined with uterine artery occlusion
was also studied by Kang et al. on a total of 37 patients with adenomyosis, and was
also noted to be effective in reducing menorrhagia (post-op menorrhagia score was 59
at 12 months compared to 158 at baseline, p< 0.001), dysmenorrhea (12 months post-op
score of
4 vs. 8
pre-op, p< 0.001) and uterine volume (91.6 cm
3
at 12 months post-op
vs. 224.6 cm
3
, shrinkage rate of 59.2% p< 0.001) [
58
]. Furthermore, Zheng et al. found
that resection combined with LNG-IUD was more effective in reducing menstrual flow
when compared to the IUD alone (p< 0.001), but no difference in pain reduction was
noted (p= 0.061) [
59
]. A case report by Ota et al. was recently published investigating a
new technique using real-time intraoperative ultrasound elastography guidance during

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 7 of 12
laparoscopic resection of adenomyosis to preserve healthy uterine tissue while avoiding
residual disease in the myometrium [60].
3.2.3. Uterine Artery Embolization (UAE)
Uterine artery embolization has been used in the treatment of leiomyomas and was
shown to be as effective as myomectomy in improving quality of life and controlling
symptoms [
61
]. Its use in both diffuse and focal adenomyosis is being investigated and
studies are promising so far. Siskin et al. performed a retrospective review of 15 patients
with adenomyosis and menorrhagia who underwent UAE and were followed up with
imaging. At 12-months follow-up, 92.3% of patients reported significant improvement
in presenting symptoms and quality of life [
62
]. MR imaging performed at a mean of
6 months post treatment revealed significant reductions in median uterine volume (42%)
and mean junctional zone thickness (11 mm, 33%, p< 0.5) [
62
]. Significant improvement in
dysmenorrhea (95.2%) and menorrhagia (95%) were also reported by Kim et al., along with
coagulation necrosis of adenomyosis (72.1% of patients), decreased size without necrosis
(25.6% of patients), and a mean uterine volume reduction of 32.5% on MRI [63].
Other studies reported similar results consistent with a decrease in uterine volume on
MRI and a significant reduction in menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea [
64
–
68
]. Smeets et al.
assessed long-term outcomes of UAE at 65 months post treatment and found that UAE
resulted in long-term preservation of the uterus without clinical symptoms. They reported
that the only predictor for hysterectomy was the initial thickness of the junction zone [
69
].
In another 7 years clinical follow up by de Bruijn et al., 82% of UAE-treated patients with
adenomyosis avoided a hysterectomy and 72% of them reported being fairly satisfied about
the treatment [
70
]. Quality of life and symptom severity scores were significantly decreased
3 months post treatment and were still comparable at the 7 years follow up [
70
]. The current
ongoing QUESTA trial is comparing UAE to hysterectomy in patients with adenomyosis
and should provide further evidence for the use of UAE as a treatment option [
71
]. The
impact of UAE on infertility is still not well established and should also be taken into
consideration [72].
3.2.4. Radiofrequency Ablation
Radiofrequency ablation of adenomyotic lesions is another promising uterine-preserving
option for focal adenomyosis. Scarperi et al. found a significant reduction in adenomyosis
volume (24.2 vs. 60 cm
3
,p< 0.01) and a 68.1% visual analog scale score reduction at
9 months post laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation [
73
]. Hai et al. performed ultrasound-
guided transcervical radiofrequency ablation for adenomyosis on 87 patients and reported
a 41.2% uterine volume reduction and a focal adenomyosis volume decrease of 54.7%
at 12 months post treatment [
74
]. The VAS scores significantly declined from 6.9 to 1.9
at 12 months follow up and symptoms severity score also showed a drop from 44 to
11.85 at 12 months (p< 0.001) [
74
]. Radiofrequency ablation was also shown to maintain
fertility with a pregnancy success rate reaching up to 50% making it a desirable option
for patients who wish to conceive [
75
]. Radiofrequency ablation is also effective when
combined with LNG-IUD demonstrated by a reduction of uterine volume and a decrease
in dysmenorrhea [76].
3.2.5. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
High-intensity focused ultrasound is a non-surgical option that utilizes ultrasound
waves to cause coagulative necrosis and cell death to pathologic tissue [
77
]. It has been
widely studied in the treatment of adenomyosis and results were consistent in revealing
that it is safe and effective but RCTs are lacking. HIFU showed a significant decrease in
dysmenorrhea scores and in volume of adenomyotic lesions across several studies [
78
–
81
].
Menorrhagia also seems to significantly improve after treatment with HIFU in both focal
and diffuse adenomyosis [
82
–
84
]. Results were sustained at 2 years follow up as shown
by Shui et al. such that the dysmenorrhea relief rate was 82.3% and menorrhagia relief

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 8 of 12
rate reached 78.9% at 2 years post treatment [
85
]. In a meta-analysis by Marques et al.,
pooled results showed a significant reduction in uterine volume (standard mean difference,
SMD = 0.85)
, dysmenorrhea
(SMD = 2.37)
, and significant improvement in quality of life
(SMD = 2.75)
at 12 months post treatment of adenomyosis with HIFU [
86
]. The effect
on HIFU on fertility has not been well established. In a study by Lee et al., levels of
anti-Mullerian hormone were measured pre and post treatment to assess the impact of
this treatment on ovarian reserve and found no significant difference between levels pre-
treatment and at 6 months post-treatment (2.11 vs. 1.84, p> 0.05) suggesting that HIFU
has no effect on ovarian function [
87
]. When compared to laparoscopic excision, HIFU
showed significantly higher pregnancy and natural conception rates and was comparable
to excision in terms of pain and menorrhagia reduction [
88
]. Further studies are required to
determine fertility outcomes. HIFU was also studied in combination with GnRH agonists
or with LNG-IUD and combination therapy was noted to be more effective than treatment
with HIFU alone, especially when comparing long term outcomes [
89
,
90
]. Uterine and
adenomyotic volume, dysmenorrhea, and menorrhagia all significantly decreased upon
addition of GnRH after HIFU treatment (p< 0.05) [
91
]. Similar results were seen when HIFU
was combined with LNG-IUD and long-term efficacy also seemed to be enhanced in the
combined treatment such that the 6 months and 3 years follow up results were significantly
higher in groups treated with combination therapy than with HIFU alone [92,93].
4. Conclusions
Treatment of adenomyosis varies widely from simple medication to a total hysterec-
tomy and several options in between. Randomized controlled trials that compare treat-
ments are insufficient but there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of several
emerging therapeutic approaches such as GnRH agonist and antagonist therapy, progestin
IUDs and ultrasound ablation. Further studies are needed to determine fertility outcomes
and long-term effects of these treatments. To date, the choice of therapy for adenomyosis is
still individualized and should rely on the clinical presentation of patients and the desire for
future pregnancy, especially with the increasing number of nulliparous, younger patients
with this condition. Levonorgestrel IUD is effective, non-invasive, and fertility-preserving
and seems to be the superior choice of treatment for this population. However, further
evidence is still required to establish definite treatment guidelines for adenomyosis.
Author Contributions:
The design and construction of this paper was primarily performed by F.I.S.,
J.S.K., J.M.A. and G.N.M. Literature review was performed by M.H.K., A.F., S.R., J.S.K., G.N.M. Initial
drafting and composition of the manuscript was performed by F.I.S., M.H.K., A.F., S.R., J.S.K., J.M.A.
and G.N.M. Final edits were approved by F.I.S., J.M.A. and G.N.M. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Bird, C.C.; McElin, T.W.; Manalo-Estrella, P. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus—Revisited. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
1972
,112,
583–593. [CrossRef]
2.
García-Solares, J.; Donnez, J.; Donnez, O.; Dolmans, M.-M. Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: Invagination or metaplasia?
Fertil. Steril. 2018,109, 371–379. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Vigano, P.; Candiani, M.; Monno, A.; Giacomini, E.; Vercellini, P.; Somigliana, E. Time to redefine endometriosis including its
pro-fibrotic nature. Hum. Reprod. 2018,33, 347–352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Koninckx, P.R.; Ussia, A.; Adamyan, L.; Tahlak, M.; Keckstein, J.; Wattiez, A.; Martin, D.C. The epidemiology of endometriosis is
poorly known as the pathophysiology and diagnosis are unclear. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.
2021
,71, 14–26. [CrossRef]

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 9 of 12
5.
¸Tăran, F.-A.; Stewart, E.; Brucker, S. Adenomyosis: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Clinical Phenotype and Surgical and Interventional
Alternatives to Hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2013,73, 924–931.
6.
Vannuccini, S.; Luisi, S.; Tosti, C.; Sorbi, F.; Petraglia, F. Role of medical therapy in the management of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil.
Steril. 2018,109, 398–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Farquhar, C.; Brosens, I. Medical and surgical management of adenomyosis. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.
2006
,20,
603–616. [CrossRef]
8.
Li, J.-J.; Chung, J.; Wang, S.; Li, T.C.; Duan, H. The Investigation and Management of Adenomyosis in Women Who Wish to
Improve or Preserve Fertility. BioMed Res. Int. 2018,2018, 6832685. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Kitawaki, J. Adenomyosis: The pathophysiology of an oestrogen-dependent disease. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.
2006
,
20, 493–502. [CrossRef]
10.
Dessouky, R.; Gamil, S.A.; Nada, M.G.; Mousa, R.; Libda, Y. Management of uterine adenomyosis: Current trends and uterine
artery embolization as a potential alternative to hysterectomy. Insights Imaging 2019,10, 48. [CrossRef]
11. Osada, H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: The surgical approach. Fertil. Steril. 2018,109, 406–417. [CrossRef]
12. NICE. Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Assessment and Management. 2018. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/
ng88/chapter/recommendations#management-of-hmb (accessed on 7 July 2021).
13.
Marjoribanks, J.; Ayeleke, R.O.; Farquhar, C.; Proctor, M. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane
Database Syst. Rev. 2010. [CrossRef]
14.
Wong, C.L.; Farquhar, C.; Roberts, H.; Proctor, M. Oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.
2009,2009, CD002120. [CrossRef]
15.
Sharafi, K.; Kunze, K.; Nosher, J.L.; Bachmann, G.A. Symptomatic fibroids: The need to include low dose OCPs as a treatment
option. Prim. Care Update OB GYNS 2000,7, 46–48. [CrossRef]
16.
Pontis, A.; D’Alterio, M.N.; Pirarba, S.; De Angelis, C.; Tinelli, R.; Angioni, S. Adenomyosis: A systematic review of medical
treatment. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2016,32, 696–700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Mansouri, R.; Santos, X.M.; Bercaw-Pratt, J.L.; Dietrich, J.E. Regression of Adenomyosis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging after
a Course of Hormonal Suppression in Adolescents: A Case Series. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol.
2015
,28, 437–440. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
18.
Brown, J.; Pan, A.; Hart, R.J. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues for pain associated with endometriosis. Cochrane
Database Syst. Rev. 2010,2010, CD008475.
19.
Donnez, O.; Donnez, J. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (linzagolix): A new therapy for uterine adenomyosis. Fertil.
Steril. 2020,114, 640–645. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Kavoussi, S.K.; Esqueda, A.S.; Jukes, L.M. Elagolix to medically treat a uterine adenomyoma: A case report. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Reprod. Biol. 2020,247, 266–267. [CrossRef]
21.
Imai, A.; Matsunami, K.; Takagi, H.; Ichigo, S. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device used for dysmenorrhea: Five-year
literature review. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014,41, 495–498.
22.
Maia, H.; Maltez, A.; Coelho, G.; Athayde, C.; Coutinho, E.M. Insertion of mirena after endometrial resection in patients with
adenomyosis. J. Am. Assoc. Gynecol. Laparosc. 2003,10, 512–516. [CrossRef]
23.
Ozdegirmenci, O.; Kayikcioglu, F.; Akgul, M.A.; Kaplan, M.; Karcaaltincaba, M.; Haberal, A.; Akyol, M. Comparison of
levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus hysterectomy on efficacy and quality of life in patients with adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril.
2011,95, 497–502. [CrossRef]
24.
Beatty, M.N.; Blumenthal, P.D. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: Safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability. Ther.
Clin. Risk Manag. 2009,5, 561–574.
25.
Fong, Y.F.; Singh, K. Medical treatment of a grossly enlarged adenomyotic uterus with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine
system. Contraception 1999,60, 173–175. [CrossRef]
26.
Shaaban, O.M.; Ali, M.K.; Sabra, A.M.A.; El Aal, D.E.M.A. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus a low-dose
combined oral contraceptive for treatment of adenomyotic uteri: A randomized clinical trial. Contraception
2015
,92, 301–317.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Abbas, A.M.; Samy, A.; Atwa, K.; Ghoneim, H.M.; Lotfy, M.; Mohammed, H.S.; Abdellah, A.M.; El Bahie, A.M.; Aboelroose, A.A.;
El Gedawy, A.M.; et al. The role of levonorgestrel intra-uterine system in the management of adenomyosis: A systematic review
and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020,99, 571–581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Igarashi, M. Further studies on danazol-loaded IUD in uterine adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2002,77, S25. [CrossRef]
29.
Igarashi, M.; Abe, Y.; Fukuda, M.; Ando, A.; Miyasaka, M.; Yoshida, M. Novel conservative medical therapy for uterine
adenomyosis with a danazol-loaded intrauterine device. Fertil. Steril. 2000,74, 412–413. [CrossRef]
30. Shawki, O.; Igarashi, M. Danazol loaded intrauterine device (IUD) for management of uterine adenomyosis: A novel approach.
Fertil. Steril. 2002,77, S24. [CrossRef]
31.
Osuga, Y.; Hayashi, K.; Kanda, S. Long-term use of dienogest for the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. J. Obstet.
Gynaecol. Res. 2020,46, 606–617. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Hirata, T.; Izumi, G.; Takamura, M.; Saito, A.; Nakazawa, A.; Harada, M.; Hirota, Y.; Koga, K.; Fujii, T.; Osuga, Y. Efficacy of
dienogest in the treatment of symptomatic adenomyosis: A pilot study. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2014,30, 726–729. [CrossRef]

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 10 of 12
33.
Osuga, Y.; Fujimoto-Okabe, H.; Hagino, A. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of dienogest in the treatment of painful symptoms
in patients with adenomyosis: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Fertil. Steril.
2017
,108,
673–678. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Neriishi, K.; Hirata, T.; Fukuda, S.; Izumi, G.; Nakazawa, A.; Yamamoto, N.; Harada, M.; Hirota, Y.; Koga, K.; Wada-Hiraike,
O.; et al. Long-term dienogest administration in patients with symptomatic adenomyosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res.
2018
,44,
1439–1444. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Fawzy, M.; Mesbah, Y. Comparison of dienogest versus triptorelin acetate in premenopausal women with adenomyosis: A
prospective clinical trial. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015,292, 1267–1271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Hassanin, A.I.; Youssef, A.A.; Yousef, A.M.; Ali, M.K. Comparison of dienogest versus combined oral contraceptive pills in the
treatment of women with adenomyosis: A randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.
2021
,154, 263–269. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
37.
Ota, K.; Takahashi, T.; Shiraishi, S.; Mizunuma, H. Combination of microwave endometrial ablation and postoperative dienogest
administration is effective for treating symptomatic adenomyosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018,44, 1787–1792. [CrossRef]
38.
Badawy, A.M.; Elnashar, A.M.; Mosbah, A.A. Aromatase inhibitors or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the man-
agement of uterine adenomyosis: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.
2012
,91, 489–495. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39.
Kimura, F.; Takahashi, K.; Takebayashi, K.; Fujiwara, M.; Kita, N.; Noda, Y.; Harada, N. Concomitant treatment of severe uterine
adenomyosis in a premenopausal woman with an aromatase inhibitor and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Fertil.
Steril. 2007,87, 1468.e9–1468.e12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Gracia, M.; Alcalà, M.; Ferreri, J.; Rius, M.; Ros, C.; Saco, M.A.; Martínez-Zamora, M.; Carmona, F. Ulipristal Acetate Improves
Clinical Symptoms in Women with Adenomyosis and Uterine Myomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.
2018
,25, 1274–1280. [CrossRef]
41.
Capmas, P.; Brun, J.-L.; Legendre, G.; Koskas, M.; Merviel, P.; Fernandez, H. Ulipristal acetate use in adenomyosis: A randomized
controlled trial. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021,50, 101978. [CrossRef]
42.
Conway, F.; Morosetti, G.; Camilli, S.; Martire, F.G.; Sorrenti, G.; Piccione, E.; Zupi, E.; Exacoustos, C. Ulipristal acetate therapy
increases ultrasound features of adenomyosis: A good treatment given in an erroneous diagnosis of uterine fibroids. Gynecol.
Endocrinol. 2019,35, 207–210. [CrossRef]
43.
Calderon, L.; Netter, A.; Grob-Vaillant, A.; Mancini, J.; Siles, P.; Vidal, V.; Agostini, A. Progression of adenomyosis magnetic
resonance imaging features under ulipristal acetate for symptomatic fibroids. Reprod. Biomed. Online
2021
,42, 661–668. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
44.
Hong, Y.H.; Han, S.J.; Lee, D.; Kim, S.K.; Jee, B.C. Adverse symptoms during short-term use of ulipristal acetate in women with
uterine myomas and/or adenomyosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2019,45, 865–870. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
European Medicines Agency. Meeting Highlights from the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) 31 August–3
September 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-
assessment-committee-prac-31-august-3-september-2020 (accessed on 7 July 2021).
46.
Zhu, B.; Chen, Y.; Shen, X.; Liu, X.; Guo, S.-W. Anti-platelet therapy holds promises in treating adenomyosis: Experimental
evidence. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2016,14, 66. [CrossRef]
47.
Łupicka, M.; Socha, B.M.; Szczepa´nska, A.A.; Korzekwa, A.J. Prolactin role in the bovine uterus during adenomyosis. Domest.
Anim. Endocrinol. 2017,58, 1–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48.
Andersson, J.K.; Khan, Z.; Weaver, A.L.; Vaughan, L.E.; Gemzell-Danielsson, K.; Stewart, E.A. Vaginal bromocriptine improves
pain, menstrual bleeding and quality of life in women with adenomyosis: A pilot study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.
2019
,98,
1341–1350. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Andersson, J.K.; Mucelli, R.P.; Epstein, E.; Stewart, E.A.; Gemzell-Danielsson, K. Vaginal bromocriptine for treatment of
adenomyosis: Impact on magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasound. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.
2020
,254,
38–43. [CrossRef]
50.
Mechsner, S.; Grum, B.; Gericke, C.; Loddenkemper, C.; Dudenhausen, J.W.; Ebert, A.D. Possible roles of oxytocin receptor and
vasopressin-1
α
receptor in the pathomechanism of dysperistalsis and dysmenorrhea in patients with adenomyosis uteri. Fertil.
Steril. 2010,94, 2541–2546. [CrossRef]
51.
Mahar, K.M.; Enslin, M.B.; Gress, A.; Amrine-Madsen, H.; Cooper, M. Single- and Multiple-Day Dosing Studies to Investigate
High-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Epelsiban and Its Metabolite, GSK2395448, in Healthy Female Volunteers. Clin. Pharmacol. Drug
Dev. 2018,7, 33–43. [CrossRef]
52.
Ajao, M.O.; Brito, L.G.O.; Wang, K.C.; Cox, M.K.; Meurs, E.; Goggins, E.R.; Gu, X.; Vitonis, A.F.; Einarsson, J.I.; Cohen, S.L.
Persistence of Symptoms After Total vs Supracervical Hysterectomy in Women with Histopathological Diagnosis of Adenomyosis.
J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019,26, 891–896. [CrossRef]
53.
Wood, C.; Maher, P.; Hill, D. Biopsy diagnosis and conservative surgical treatment of adenomyosis. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.
1993,33, 319–321. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54.
Saremi, A.; Bahrami, H.; Salehian, P.; Hakak, N.; Pooladi, A. Treatment of adenomyomectomy in women with severe uterine
adenomyosis using a novel technique. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2014,28, 753–760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
Shu, S.; Luo, X.; Wang, Z.; Yao, Y. Fifteen cases clinical analysis of wedge-shaped resection of uterus treating adenomyosis-
CONSORT. Medicine 2016,95, e3805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 11 of 12
56.
Grimbizis, G.F.; Mikos, T.; Tarlatzis, B. Uterus-sparing operative treatment for adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril.
2014
,101, 472–487.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Younes, G.; Tulandi, T. Conservative Surgery for Adenomyosis and Results: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.
2018,25, 265–276. [CrossRef]
58.
Kang, L.; Gong, J.; Cheng, Z.; Dai, H.; LiPing, H. Clinical application and midterm results of laparoscopic partial resection of
symptomatic adenomyosis combined with uterine artery occlusion. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2009,16, 169–173. [CrossRef]
59.
Zheng, J.; Xia, E.; Li, T.C.; Sun, X. Comparison of combined transcervical resection of the endometrium and levonorgestrel-
containing intrauterine system treatment versus levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine system treatment alone in women with
adenomyosis: A prospective clinical trial. J. Reprod. Med. 2013,58, 285–290. [PubMed]
60.
Ota, Y.; Ota, K.; Takahashi, T.; Suzuki, S.; Sano, R.; Shiota, M. New surgical technique of laparoscopic resection of adenomyosis
under real-time intraoperative ultrasound elastography guidance: A case report. Heliyon 2020,6, e04628. [CrossRef]
61.
Manyonda, I.T.; Bratby, M.; Horst, J.S.; Banu, N.; Gorti, M.; Belli, A.-M. Uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy: Impact
on quality of life—Results of the FUME (Fibroids of the Uterus: Myomectomy versus Embolization) Trial. Cardiovasc. Interv.
Radiol. 2012,35, 530–536. [CrossRef]
62.
Siskin, G.P.; Tublin, M.E.; Stainken, B.F.; Dowling, K.; Dolen, E.G. Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of adenomyosis:
Clinical response and evaluation with MR imaging. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001,177, 297–302. [CrossRef]
63.
Kim, M.; Won, J.; Lee, D.; Ahn, C.-S. Uterine artery embolization for adenomyosis without fibroids. Clin. Radiol.
2004
,59, 520–526.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
64.
Kim, M.D.; Kim, S.; Kim, N.K.; Lee, M.H.; Ahn, E.H.; Kim, H.J.; Cho, J.H.; Cha, S.H. Long-term results of uterine artery
embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007,188, 176–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Kitamura, Y.; Allison, S.J.; Jha, R.C.; Spies, J.B.; Flick, P.A.; Ascher, S.M. MRI of adenomyosis: Changes with uterine artery
embolization. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006,186, 855–864. [CrossRef]
66.
Wang, S.; Meng, X.; Dong, Y. The evaluation of uterine artery embolization as a nonsurgical treatment option for adenomyosis.
Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2016,133, 202–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
de Bruijn, A.M.; Smink, M.; Lohle, P.N.M.; Huirn, J.A.F.; Twisk, J.W.R.; Wong, C.; Schoonmade, L.; Hehenkamp, W.J.K. Uterine
Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Adenomyosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol.
2017
,28,
1629–1642.e1. [CrossRef]
68.
Liang, E.; Brown, B.; Rachinsky, M. A clinical audit on the efficacy and safety of uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic
adenomyosis: Results in 117 women. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018,58, 454–459. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69.
Smeets, A.J.; Nijenhuis, R.J.; Boekkooi, P.F.; Vervest, H.A.M.; Van Rooij, W.J.; Lohle, P.N.M. Long-term follow-up of uterine artery
embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012,35, 815–819. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70.
de Bruijn, A.M.; Smink, M.; Hehenkamp, W.J.K.; Nijenhuis, R.J.; Smeets, A.J.; Boekkooi, F.; Reuwer, P.J.H.M.; van Rooij, W.J.; Lohle,
P.N.M. Uterine Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Adenomyosis: 7-Year Clinical Follow-up Using UFS-Qol Questionnaire.
Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2017,40, 1344–1350. [CrossRef]
71.
de Bruijn, A.M.; Lohle, P.N.; Huirne, J.A.; de Vries, J.; Twisk, M.; Hehenkamp, W.J.; QUESTA-Trial Group. Uterine Artery
Embolization Versus Hysterectomy in the Treatment of Symptomatic Adenomyosis: Protocol for the Randomized QUESTA Trial.
JMIR Res. Protoc. 2018,7, e47. [CrossRef]
72.
Mohan, P.P.; Hamblin, M.H.; Vogelzang, R.L. Uterine artery embolization and its effect on fertility. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol.
2013
,24,
925–930. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73.
Scarperi, S.; Pontrelli, G.; Campana, C.; Steinkasserer, M.; Ercoli, A.; Minelli, L.; Bergamini, V.; Ceccaroni, M. Laparoscopic
Radiofrequency Thermal Ablation for Uterine Adenomyosis. J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg. 2015,19, e2015.00071. [CrossRef]
74.
Hai, N.; Hou, Q.; Ding, X.; Dong, X.; Jin, M. Ultrasound-guided transcervical radiofrequency ablation for symptomatic uterine
adenomyosis. Br. J. Radiol. 2017,90, 20160119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75.
Nam, J.H. Pregnancy and symptomatic relief following ultrasound-guided transvaginal radiofrequency ablation in patients with
adenomyosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2020,46, 124–132. [CrossRef]
76.
Hai, N.; Hou, Q.; Guo, R. Ultrasound-guided transvaginal radiofrequency ablation combined with levonorgestrel-releasing
intrauterine system for symptomatic uterine adenomyosis treatment. Int. J. Hyperth. 2021,38, 65–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77.
Cheung, V.Y.T. High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.
2018
,46, 74–83. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
78.
Fan, T.-Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, W.; Liu, Y.; He, M.; Huang, X.; Orsi, F.; Wang, Z. Feasibility of MRI-guided high intensity focused
ultrasound treatment for adenomyosis. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012,81, 3624–3630. [CrossRef]
79.
Wang, W.; Wang, Y.; Tang, J. Safety and efficacy of high intensity focused ultrasound ablation therapy for adenomyosis. Acad.
Radiol. 2009,16, 1416–1423. [CrossRef]
80.
Zhou, M.; Chen, J.-Y.; Tang, L.-D.; Chen, W.-Z.; Wang, Z.-B. Ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for
adenomyosis: The clinical experience of a single center. Fertil. Steril. 2011,95, 900–905. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81.
Li, W.; Mao, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, X.; Zheng, W.; Wang, L. Clinical effectiveness and potential long-term
benefits of high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for patients with adenomyosis. J. Int. Med. Res.
2020
,48, 300060520976492.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

J. Clin. Med. 2021,10, 3410 12 of 12
82.
Zhou, C.Y.; Xu, X.J.; He, J. Pregnancy outcomes and symptom improvement of patients with adenomyosis treated with high
intensity focused ultrasound ablation. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2016,51, 845–849.
83.
Zhang, X.; Li, K.; Xie, B.; He, M.; He, J.; Zhang, L. Effective ablation therapy of adenomyosis with ultrasound-guided high-intensity
focused ultrasound. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2014,124, 207–211. [CrossRef]
84.
Dev, B.; Gadddam, S.; Kumar, M.; Varadarajan, S. MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery: A novel non-invasive technique in the
treatment of adenomyosis -18 month’s follow-up of 12 cases. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging 2019,29, 284–288. [CrossRef]
85.
Shui, L.; Mao, S.; Wu, Q.; Huang, G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, R.; Li, K.; He, J.; Zhang, L. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for
adenomyosis: Two-year follow-up results. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2015,27, 677–681. [CrossRef]
86.
Marques, A.L.S.; Andres, M.P.; Kho, R.M.; Abrão, M.S. Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Effective for the Treatment of
Adenomyosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2020,27, 332–343. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87.
Lee, J.-S.; Hong, G.; Lee, K.H.; Kim, T. Changes in anti-müllerian hormone levels as a biomarker for ovarian reserve after
ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of adenomyosis and uterine fibroid. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.
2017,124 (Suppl. 3), 18–22. [CrossRef]
88.
Huang, Y.F.; Deng, J.; Wei, X.L.; Sun, X.; Xue, M.; Zhu, X.G.; Deng, X.L. A comparison of reproductive outcomes of patients with
adenomyosis and infertility treated with High-Intensity focused ultrasound and laparoscopic excision. Int. J. Hyperth.
2020
,37,
301–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
89.
Guo, Q.; Xu, F.; Ding, Z.; Li, P.; Wang, X.; Gao, B. High intensity focused ultrasound treatment of adenomyosis: A comparative
study. Int. J. Hyperth. 2018,35, 505–509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90.
Haiyan, S.; Lin, W.; Shuhua, H.; Wang, W. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) combined with gonadotropin-releasing
hormone analogs (GnRHa) and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for adenomyosis: A case series with
long-term follow up. Int. J. Hyperth. 2019,36, 1179–1185. [CrossRef]
91.
Guo, Y.; Duan, H.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, Y. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist combined with high-intensity focused
ultrasound ablation for adenomyosis: A clinical study. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2017,124 (Suppl. 3), 7–11. [CrossRef]
92.
Li, X.; Zhu, X.; He, S.; Jiang, Z.; Li, H.; Tian, X.; Long, W.; Xue, M.; Deng, X.; Ye, M. High-intensity focused ultrasound in the
management of adenomyosis: Long-term results from a single center. Int. J. Hyperth. 2021,38, 241–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93.
Xu, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, H.; Shao, L.; Liu, G. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Combined With Gonadotropin-Releasing
Hormone Agonist or Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System in Treating Dysmenorrhea of Severe Adenomyosis. J. Comput.
Assist. Tomogr. 2021,45, 224–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]