Skip to main content

Management of uterine adenomyosis: current trends and uterine artery embolization as a potential alternative to hysterectomy


Adenomyosis is a challenging clinical condition that is commonly being diagnosed in women of reproductive age. To date, many aspects of the disease have not been fully understood, making management increasingly difficult. Over time, minimally invasive diagnostic and treatment methods have developed as more women desire uterine preservation for future fertility or to avoid major surgery. Several uterine-sparing treatment options are now available, including medication, hysteroscopic resection or ablation, conservative surgical methods, and high-intensity focused ultrasound each with its own risks and benefits. Uterine artery embolization is an established treatment option for uterine fibroids and has recently gained ground as a safe and cost-effective method for treatment of uterine adenomyosis with promising results. In this review, we discuss current trends in the management of uterine adenomyosis with a special focus on uterine artery embolization as an alternative to hysterectomy.

Key points

  • Uterine artery embolization (UAE) seems to be the most promising uterine-sparing, minimally invasive treatment option for adenomyosis.

  • Results of ongoing randomized controlled trial (QUESTA) will soon show whether UAE can be validated as a treatment option for adenomyosis.

  • Ability to preserve fertility will be one of the main factors determining whether UAE can replace hysterectomy in treatment of adenomyosis, but further randomized controlled trials are needed.


Adenomyosis is defined by the abnormal location of endometrial tissue within the myometrium associated with hypertrophy or hyperplasia of the myometrial stroma [1, 2]. Although pathogenesis and etiology of adenomyosis remain unknown, two main theories have been proposed: invagination of the endometrial basal layer and metaplasia of embryonic stem cells [3]. Prevalence of adenomyosis varies widely from 5 to 70% [4,5,6,7] with recent studies showing about 20% prevalence [8,9,10] among which the majority were premenopausal. Despite the absence of specific (pathognomonic) diagnostic features for uterine adenomyosis, typical symptoms include menorrhagia, chronic pelvic pain, and dysmenorrhea [11]. These symptoms are commonly encountered in other gynecological disorders including leiomyomas and endometriosis, often confounding the clinical diagnosis [12].

For more than a century, diagnosis was dependent on histopathologic examination of post-hysterectomy specimens till the introduction of noninvasive ultrasound and MR techniques [13]. Since then, several studies have illustrated high sensitivities and specificities for both two-dimensional transvaginal sonography (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [13,14,15,16,17]. Current treatment options for symptomatic adenomyosis include hysterectomy, medication, conservative surgery, or minimally invasive techniques including uterine artery embolization [18]. To date, hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment. This is mainly due to difficult diagnosis, the diffuse nature of the disease, and little evidence-based literature needed to standardize treatments [19]. This consequently results in a management dilemma, particularly in symptomatic patients who wish to preserve their uterus [18].

Uterine artery embolization (UAE) was first described in 1995 by Ravina et al. [20] then later established as an effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids [21, 22]. Since then, UAE has been investigated as a noninvasive treatment option for adenomyosis with initial promising results [23, 24]. What remains to be known is whether UAE can be validated as a safer, noninvasive, uterine-sparing alternative to hysterectomy. This article summarizes current trends in management of uterine adenomyosis with special focus on the emerging role of UAE.


The precise etiology and pathophysiology leading to the development of adenomyosis remains undetermined. Several theories have been introduced, including traumatic, immunological, hormonal, metaplastic, and stem cell [25]. Traumatic and immunological theories suggest disruption of endometrial-myometrial interface with invagination of eutopic (normally located) endometrial cells [26, 27], while hormonal, metaplastic, and stem cell theories rely on the altered behavior of atopic (displaced) cells [28,29,30]. These mechanisms, in addition to various risk factors, such as age, parity, previous uterine surgery, smoking, ectopic pregnancy, antidepressant, and tamoxifen therapies, are believed to contribute to the development of adenomyosis [19]. Regardless of etiology, histopathologic features remain the same, and definitive diagnosis is established by the presence of “ectopic, non-neoplastic, endometrial glands and stroma surrounded by hypertrophic and hyperplastic myometrium” on hysterectomy specimens [1].


Adenomyosis remains an underdiagnosed condition. This is largely due to lack of pathognomonic symptoms related to this condition [31]. Symptomatic patients varyingly present with menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and subfertility [32,33,34], and up to 30% of patients are asymptomatic [34]. Furthermore, confounding coexisting pathologies (usually fibroids and endometriosis) add to the difficulty of diagnosis, as both entities present with similar clinical features [31].

Role of ultrasound and MRI in diagnosis

With the introduction and advancement of ultrasound and MR techniques, various criteria have been utilized in the noninvasive narrowing of the clinical differential [15, 35, 36], determining the depth of myometrial invasion and monitoring treatment response [37].

Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) represents a cost-effective initial screening modality for adenomyosis. Ultrasound features of adenomyosis can be divided into direct or indirect features (Fig. 1). Direct features are due to the presence of endometrial tissue within the myometrium, and indirect features are due to a hypertrophied myometrium as described by Atri et al. [38]. Table 1 describes ultrasound features of adenomyosis as described in previous literature [14, 16, 38,39,40,41,42,43]. To report the diagnostic accuracy of TVS in adenomyosis, several meta-analyses have been published [17, 44,45,46]. Estimated pooled sensitivities of 72 to 82%, pooled specificities of 81 to 85%, and pooled positive likelihood ratios 3.7 to 4.67 have been reported [17, 44]; however, one meta-analysis suggested that variability between studies does not allow for accurate statistical pooling [45]. With the introduction of color and power Doppler ultrasound, three-dimensional TVS and elastography techniques to the work-up of adenomyosis, there is promise for further improvement in diagnostic accuracy [46].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Direct and indirect imaging features of adenomyosis on ultrasound. a Small posterior wall myometrial cysts (open arrows). b Poorly defined endo-myometrial interface (solid arrow). c Diffuse myometrial heterogeneity with hyperechoic linear striations (three arrows). d Diffuse asymmetric widening of the posterior myometrial wall with hyperechoic nodules (four arrows)

Table 1 Direct and indirect imaging features of adenomyosis

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represents a second line, detailed imaging modality for the detection of adenomyosis (Fig. 2). Similar to ultrasound, various direct and indirect features can be used to describe adenomyosis, but need more knowledge of uterine anatomy and its cyclic variations [36]. Table 1 describes MRI features of adenomyosis as described in previous literature [14,15,16, 35, 47]. Few prospective studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of adenomyosis [15, 16, 48]. These studies have reported sensitivity between 70 and 93% and specificities between 86 and 93%. Despite being less operator dependent, MRI needs more reader experience and optimization of imaging technique to achieve higher diagnostic accuracy [36].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Coronal (a) and sagittal (b) T2W 1.5-T pelvic MRI images of a 42-year-old female with persistent pelvic pain following cesarean section show focal thickening of the posterior uterine wall transitional zone (asterisk) with tiny myometrial cyst (solid arrow head), suggesting focal adenomyosis

Classification of adenomyosis

The use of complex imaging techniques has revealed various subtypes of adenomyosis, often associated with histopathologic variation in glandular and muscular components [31]. Furthermore, initial studies have linked various imaging criteria to symptoms of adenomyosis [49,50,51]. Therefore, the need for a more holistic approach to identify various disease characteristics incorporating symptomatology, morphology, and pathologic features is rising in order to improve the diagnostic accuracy and adequately guide treatment decisions. Important factors to be included in classification systems would be the site and location of pathology, configuration, and size/volume relative to the total myometrial thickness [31]. Most recent ultrasound and MR classification and reporting systems have been developed by Van den Bosch et al. [52] and Bazot [36, 53] respectively, but the clinical relevance remains to be tested.


As with many aspects of adenomyosis, treatment remains controversial. Important factors to be considered and discussed with patients are age, symptom severity, desire for future conception, and associated comorbidities [32, 54, 55]. Recent studies estimate a prevalence of adenomyosis among females younger than 40 years to be about 20–30%, while in the rest of the patients, diagnosis is usually established in the fourth or fifth decade [55,56,57]. Furthermore, diffuse adenomyosis, depth of invasion, and coexisting fibroids and/or endometriosis are associated with increased frequency/severity of symptoms and reproductive complications [31, 49, 58,59,60]. Currently, treatment is on a case by case basis, and hysterectomy remains the definitive treatment in patients who are willing and do not wish for future fertility. With the introduction of assisted reproductive techniques, delayed age of conception, and availability of minimally invasive treatment options, the shift from hysterectomy as the “go to” option seems inevitable.

Medical treatment

Medical treatment is the first-line treatment option for adenomyosis aiming to relieve symptoms and maintain fertility with the least possible side effect. This is achieved by disrupting pathways leading to inflammation, neuroangiogenesis, and impaired apoptosis [61]. Currently, several hormonal and non-hormonal options, namely gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, progestins, combined oral contraceptives, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are being used in an “off label” manner for the symptomatic treatment of adenomyosis [57, 62]. Also, newer drugs, such as aromatase inhibitors, have been investigated by Badawy et al. and Tosti et al. [63, 64], while other therapies such as selective progesterone receptor modulators, GnRH antagonists, valproic acid, and anti-platelet therapies are still under investigation [55].

The main advantage of medication is symptomatic relief without the need for surgical treatment. Nevertheless, many drawbacks still need to be addressed. This includes the temporary relieve of symptoms, and the common (i.e., menopausal symptoms, irregular bleeding, amenorrhea) and occasionally severe (i.e., thromboembolic) side effects of some drugs. Lack of evidence needed to base choice of drugs also raises the need to perform research into the comparative efficacy of currently used drugs and develop a more standardized approach for patients wanting to conceive while using medication. With a better understanding of pathogenetic mechanisms of adenomyosis, advances in drug development will soon be possible [55].

Minimally invasive techniques

These are second-line treatment options aiming to cure symptoms and preserve the uterus in patients with failed medical therapy. Conservative surgical treatments aim to remove adenomyosis and preserve the remaining normal uterine muscles through laparotomy, laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or combined approach. Excisional adenomyomectomy involves the complete removal of focal lesions (adenomyomas), while myometrectomy is the surgical debulking of diffuse adenomyosis. Non-excisional treatments aim to induce necrosis of focal or diffuse adenomyosis through selective vascular occlusion or focused ultrasound/thermal energy without direct tissue dissection. In some cases, a combination of surgical and non-excisional methods, i.e., hysteroscopic resection/ablation, are used to achieve maximum cytoreduction and reduce myometrial tissue damage.

Conservative surgical treatment

Debulking/cytoreductive surgeries aim to remove visibly diseased tissue with repair of the remaining myometrial tissue [65]. Several laparotomic techniques have been described, including wedge resection and its modifications, transverse H-shaped incision [66], wedge-shaped uterine wall removal [67], double and triple flap [68, 69], and asymmetric dissection methods [70]. Laparoscopic techniques have also been described in more focal pathology, where longitudinal or transverse incisions [71, 72] are used to access adenomyotic lesions followed by resection using monopolar needle or laser knife [73, 74], bag removal, and repair in layers or using double flaps [72, 75]. To date, there is no consensus on the best surgical method, but initial results are promising. In a systematic review by Grigoris et al., dysmenorrhea reduction, menorrhagia control, and pregnancy success rates ranged from 81 to 82%, 50 to 69%, and 47 to 61% among partial versus complete adenomyosis excisions respectively [76], and a recent review by Younes et al. showed 75% symptom relief on short-term follow-ups [77]. The main issue with conservative surgical methods is the high risk for complications, i.e., uterine rupture and complicated pregnancy [54, 65] (especially in diffuse lesions and on long-term follow-up), making this option safer in focal adenomyomas.

Hysteroscopic resection/ablation

Hysteroscopic resection/ablation is a combined treatment method involving the dissection and or coagulation of cystic adenomyotic lesions and crypts [78,79,80,81,82]. Hysteroscopic resections can be performed using yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser, rollerball resection, thermal balloon ablation, cryoablation, circulated hot fluid ablation, microwave ablation, bipolar radiofrequency ablation, and electrocoagulation [19].

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is the use of intense ultrasound energy directly targeting abnormal tissues and their vascularity through heating and cavitation, sparing the normal surrounding tissues. This process can be guided and monitored through MRI or ultrasound [83]. High-intensity focused ultrasound has been used since 2008 for the treatment of adenomyosis [84]. Since then, literature has shown promising results regarding symptom relief and uterine preservation with few reported complications (namely pain, numbness, vaginal or urinary discharge, fever, skin burn, or contact dermatitis) [83]. Recent studies have also investigated the use of ultrasound contrast agents (microbubbles) and hormonal (GnRH) and non-hormonal (metformin) treatments to enhance the efficacy of HIFU. Microbubbles are believed to improve the ablative effects of HIFU by changing the acoustic characteristics, thus increasing energy deposition in target tissues, while GnRH and metformin inhibit cellular proliferation and induce apoptosis [85,86,87]. Limited literature on treatment outcomes for HIFU in adenomyosis has shown highly variable results regarding symptom and uterine volume reduction [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. Rates of menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, and uterine volume reduction varied widely from 12.4 to 44.8%, 25 to 100%, and 12.7 to 54% respectively, increasing gradually overtime (from 1 to 24 months). Nevertheless, paucity of literature comparing HIFU to other minimally invasive treatment options, limited availability, overall cost, unknown fertility outcomes, and strict indications, including lesions no more than 10 cm in diameter [88, 90], no pelvic adhesions [84, 89, 90, 93], body weight less than 100 kg [98], and abdominal wall thickness less than 5 cm [93] may limit its widespread use.

Uterine artery embolization (UAE)

Uterine artery embolization is the use of transarterial catheters aiming to induce more than 34% necrosis within adenomyotic tissues [99, 100]. The technique for UAE in adenomyosis is similar to that used in fibroids. In many parts of the world, UAE is performed under conscious sedation. Vascular access is gained through a femoral or radial artery puncture using 4–6-French (F) arterial sheath for femoral [99, 101] and 4-F sheath for radial access [102]. Under fluoroscopic guidance, aortography is followed by selective and super selective arteriography using 4–5-F catheters for the internal iliac and 2–3-F microcatheters for the uterine artery and its branches respectively. Embolization is usually performed using variable-sized permanent particulate agents [103, 104]. Special attention is paid to visualization of the cervicovaginal and ovarian artery branches (Fig. 3). Distal embolization avoids vaginal necrosis and unwanted reflux of microspheres into the ovarian artery [105].

Fig. 3
figure 3

Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) images (of the same patient in Fig. 2) with selective injections of the left (a) uterine artery demonstrate with multiple tortuous uterine artery branches and (b) lesion blush (most prominent at the anatomic site of the posterior uterine wall). Right uterine artery injection (not shown) was unremarkable for pathology. Post-embolization DSA images show occlusion of toursous feeding vessels (c) with absence of lesion blush (d)

Despite being established in fibroids as a cost-effective, short recovery alternative to surgery with minimal complications [19, 23, 100], it was believed to have lower efficacy in adenomyosis [106]. In the past 15 years, UAE has been considerably studied for the treatment of symptomatic adenomyosis [107]. Earlier studies by Popovic, Keung, and Zhou et al. demonstrate long-term improvement in patient symptoms (in over 60% of patients) and a short-term decrease in uterine volumes (in over 20% of patients), especially in vascular lesions [23, 107, 108]. Current literature by Dueholm and Bruijn et al. show up to 67% long-term (40 month) treatment success and up to and 72% patient satisfaction rates respectively [24, 100]. In the latest systematic review and meta-analysis by de Bruijn et al., patients were divided into four groups to report short- and long-term outcomes. Short-term improvement was achieved in 89.6% of patients with pure adenomyosis and 94.3% of patients with adenomyosis with fibroids, while long-term improvement was achieved in 74.0% of patients with pure adenomyosis and 84.5% of patients with adenomyosis with fibroids [109].

Overall, UAE shows favorable clinical outcomes, but randomized controlled trials are still lacking [110]. In an attempt to fill this gap in knowledge, the “Quality of Life after Embolization vs Hysterectomy in Adenomyosis” (QUESTA) trial was set up. This multicenter non-blinded randomized controlled trial is currently ongoing in the Netherlands. It has started since November 2015, and its primary outcomes are expected by May 2020 [101]. The calculated sample size for this trial was 96 patients (divided into 52 embolization and 34 hysterectomy, including a 10% expected drop-out) made on assumptions from the embolization versus hysterectomy (EMMY) trial outcomes [111].

Inclusion criteria were premenopausal women with symptomatic pure adenomyosis or dominant adenomyosis when both adenomyosis and fibroids coexist and women with an indication for hysterectomy (either failed or refused medical treatment). Exclusion criteria were patients under 18 years of age, pelvic infection, suspected or confirmed malignancy, current or future desire to conceive, any absolute contraindication to angiography, deep infiltrating endometriosis requiring surgery or obstructing the bowel, or coexisting hysteroscopically removable submucous fibroids. Following selection, TVUS and MRIs were performed to confirm the adenomyosis and eligible patients are informed of the trial. Patients with written informed consents were randomly allocated (in a 2:1 ratio) between both experimental intervention (UAE) and standard care control groups (hysterectomy), while patients refusing randomization are given the standard of care (hysterectomy) [101].

Following the procedure (UAE or hysterectomy), patients are followed up immediately, then at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months using an online questionnaire system. Three outcome parameters were measured. Primary outcomes (quality of life) were measured at 6, 12, and 24 months using a combination of World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale and Short Form-12 Questionnaires. Secondary outcomes (clinical, symptom and quality of life, recovery related, cost utility analysis, laboratory, and pathology outcomes) were measured at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Imaging outcomes were also determined to identify potential predictive parameters for therapy effect using specific TVUS criteria (uterine size/fibroid volume reduction in case of associated fibroids, vascular index by 3D power Doppler) at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months and MRI criteria (uterine size/fibroid volume reduction in case of associated fibroids, junctional zone reduction, infarction rate, and presence of endometriosis) at baseline and at 6 months postprocedure [101].

UAE as an alternative to hysterectomy

To date, UAE seems to be the most investigated and highest potential minimally invasive treatment option for adenomyosis. Results of ongoing randomized controlled (QUESTA) trial will soon show whether UAE can be validated as a treatment option for adenomyosis. Although comparative information regarding quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and complications post UAE versus hysterectomy will soon be available, questions regarding fertility post UAE remain to be answered. Current American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines still consider desire for future fertility a relative contraindication to UAE, but conflicting reports regarding effects of UAE on fertility [112] still give room for debate. Nevertheless, further randomized studies are still needed to give a clear answer for physicians and patients alike.

In conclusion, lack of information is the main hurdle to overcome the complexity in management of adenomyosis. With randomized controlled trials and more evidence-based research, optimal treatment protocols can be developed according to patient needs. Whether or not UAE can replace hysterectomy will largely depend on the results of ongoing QUESTA trial and other randomized trials comparing fertility outcomes among minimally invasive therapies.



Embolization versus hysterectomy


Gonadotropin-releasing hormone


High-intensity focused ultrasound


Quality of Life after Embolization vs Hysterectomy in Adenomyosis


Uterine artery embolization


Yttrium aluminum garnet


  1. 1.

    Bird CC, McElin TW, Manalo-Estrella P (1972) The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus--revisited. Am J Obstet Gynecol 112:583–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Benagiano G, Brosens I (2006) History of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20:449–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    García-Solares J, Donnez J, Donnez O, Dolmans MM (2018) Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: invagination or metaplasia? Fertil Steril 109:371–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Azziz R (1989) Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 16:221–235

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Vercellini P, Oldani S, Parazzini F, Panazza S, Bramante T, Crosignani PG (1995) Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: a study on frequency distribution and patient characteristics. Hum Reprod 10(5):1160–1162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bergholt T, Berendt N, Eriksen L, Jacobsen M, Hertz JB (2001) Prevalence and risk factors of adenomyosis at hysterectomy. Hum Reprod Update 16:2418–2421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Parazzini F, Mais V, Cipriani S, Busacca M, Venturini P, GISE (2009) Determinants of adenomyosis in women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: results from a prospective multicentric study in Italy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 143:103–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wallwiener M, Taran F-A, Rothmund R et al (2013) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH): an implementation study in 1,952 patients with an analysis of risk factors for conversion to laparotomy and complications, and of procedure-specific re-operations. Arch Gynecol Obs 288:1329–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Holland T, Jurkovic D (2012) How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod 27:3432–3439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Di Donato N, Montanari G, Benfenati A et al (2014) Prevalence of adenomyosis in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 181:289–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tamai K, Togashi K, Ito T, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T (2005) MR imaging findings of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathologic features and diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 25:21–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ascher SM, Jha RC, Reinhold C (2003) Benign myometrial conditions: leiomyomas and adenomyosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14:281–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Habiba M, Benagiano G (2015) Uterine adenomyosis. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A et al (1999) Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics 19:S147–S160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sørensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 76:588–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E et al (2001) Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 16:2427–2433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS (2010) Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obs Gynecol Scand 89:1374–1384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Radzinsky VE, Khamoshina MB, Nosenko EN et al (2016) Treatment strategies for pelvic pain associated with adenomyosis. Gynecol Endocrinol 32:19–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Taran FA, Stewart EA, Brucker S (2013) Adenomyosis: epidemiology, risk factors, clinical phenotype and surgical and interventional alternatives to hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 73:924–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ravina JH, Herbreteau D, Ciraru-Vigneron N et al (1995) Arterial embolisation to treat uterine myomata. Lancet 346:671–672

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    de Bruijn AM, Ankum WM, Reekers JA et al (2016) Uterine artery embolization vs hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: 10-year outcomes from the randomized EMMY trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215:e741–e745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Edwards RD, Moss JG, Lumsden MA et al (2007) Uterine-artery embolization versus surgery for symptomatic uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 356:360–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Popovic M, Puchner S, Berzaczy D, Lammer J, Bucek RA (2011) Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of adenomyosis: a review. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:901–909quiz 909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    de Bruijn AM, Smink M, Hehenkamp WJK et al (2017) Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis: 7-year clinical follow-up using UFS-Qol questionnaire. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40:1344–1350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Tinelli A, Malvasi A (2015, 2015) Uterine myoma, myomectomy and minimally invasive treatments. Springer International Publishing, pp 1–281

  26. 26.

    Habiba M, Benagiano G, Brosens I (2016) The pathophysiology of adenomyosis. In: Habiba M, Benagiano G (eds) Uterine adenomyosis, vol 4. Springer, Cham, pp 45–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ota H, Hatazawa J, Igarashi S, Tanaka T (1998) Is adenomyosis an immune disease? Hum Reprod 4:360–367

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A (2006) Pathophysiology and physiology of adenomyosis. Best Pr Res Clin Obs Gynaecol 20:511–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Matsumoto Y, Iwasaka T, Yamasaki F, Sugimori H (1999) Apoptosis and Ki-67 expression in adenomyotic lesions and in the corresponding eutopic endometrium. Obstet Gynecol 94:71–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Du H, Taylor HS (2009) Stem cell and female reproduction. Reprod Sci 16:126–139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gordts S, Grimbizis G, Campo R (2018) Symptoms and classification of uterine adenomyosis, including the place of hysteroscopy in diagnosis. Fertil Steril 109:380–388.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA (2016) Adenomyosis: a clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23:164–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Garcia L, Isaacson K (2011) Adenomyosis: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:428–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Peric H, Fraser IS (2006) The symptomatology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20:547–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, Morisawa N, Fujiwara T, Koyama T (1988) Adenomyosis: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 166:111–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bazot M, Daraï E (2018) Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 109:389–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Sugino N (2018) Uterine fibroids and adenomyosis. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio AR, Chapman WB, Bret PM (2000) Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in-vitro study. Radiology 215:783–790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bazot M, Darai E, Rouger J, Detchev R, Cortez A, Uzan S (2002) Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20:605–611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Arcaini L, Zanotti F, Carinelli S (1992) Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 58:94–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Goynumer G, Tutal E (2007) Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:341–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Sun YL, Wang CB, Lee CY et al (2010) Transvaginal sonographic criteria for the diagnosis of adenomyosis based on histopathologic correlation. Taiwan J Obstet Gyneco 49:40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Exacoustos C, Brienza L, Di Giovanni A et al (2011) Adenomyosis: three-dimensional sonographic findings of the junctional zone and correlation with histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:471–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Meredith SM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:107e1–107e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Dartmouth K (2014) A systematic review with meta-analysis: the common sonographic characteristics of adenomyosis. Ultrasound 22:148–157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Ribeiro J, Baracat EC, Abrão MS, Kho RM (2018) Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:257–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Togashi K, Konishi I, Itoh H, Nishimura K, Fujisawa IOH (1989) Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology 171:531–534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM et al (1996) Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 199:151–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Foo X, Jurkovic D (2014) Is adenomyosis associated with menorrhagia? Hum Reprod 29:473–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Naftalin J, Hoo W, Nunes N, Holland T, Mavrelos D, Jurkovic D (2016) Association between ultrasound features of adenomyosis and severity of menstrual pain. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:779–783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Eisenberg VH, Arbib N, Schiff E, Goldenberg M, Seidman DS, Soriano D (2017) Sonographic signs of adenomyosis are prevalent in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis and may suggest a higher risk of infertility. Biomed Res Int 2017:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Van den Bosch T, de Bruijn AM, de Leeuw RA et al (2018) A sonographic classification and reporting system for diagnosing adenomyosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol

  53. 53.

    Bazot M (2017) Pathologie Myometriale. In: Nahum H (ed) Imagerie de la femme - Gynecologie. Lavoisier, Paris, p 668

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Oliveira MAP, Crispi CP Jr, Brollo LC, De Wilde RL (2018) Surgery in adenomyosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297:581–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Vannuccini S, Luisi S, Tosti C, Sorbi F, Petraglia F (2018) Role of medical therapy in the management of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 109:398–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Tan J, Moriarty S, Taskin O et al (2018) Reproductive outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for focal and diffuse adenomyosis: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:608–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Pontis A, D’Alterio MN, Pirarba S, de Angelis C, Tinelli R, Angioni S (2016) Adenomyosis: a systematic review of medical treatment. Gynecol Endocrinol 32:696–700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Pinzauti S, Tosti C, Centini G et al (2015) Transvaginal sonographic features of diffuse adenomyosis in 18-30-year-old nulligravid women without endometriosis: association with symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46:730–736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Mochimaru A, Aoki S, Oba MS, Kurasawa K, Takahashi T, Hirahara F (2015) Adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with adenomyosis with uterine enlargement. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 41:529–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Taran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, Stewart EA (2010) Understanding adenomyosis: a case control study. Fertil Steril 94:1223–1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Vannuccini S, Tosti C, Carmona F et al (2017) Pathogenesis of adenomyosis: an update on molecular mechanisms. Reprod BioMed Online 35:592–601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G (2008) Hormonal treatments for adenomyosis. Best Pr Res Clin Obs Gynaecol 22:333–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Badawy AM, Elnashar AM, Mosbah AA (2012) Aromatase inhibitors or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the management of uterine adenomyosis: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91:489–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Tosti C, Vannuccini S, Lazzeri L, Luisi S, Petraglia F, Troìa L (2016) Current and future medical treatment of adenomyosis. J Endometr 8:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Osada H (2018) Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril 109:406–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Fujishita A, Masuzaki H, Khan KN, Kitajima M, Ishimaru T (2004) Modified reduction surgery for adenomyosis. A preliminary report of the transverse H incision technique. Gynecol Obstet Investig 57:132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Saremi A, Bahrami H, Salehian P, Hakak N, Pooladi A, Bahrami H (2014) Treatment of adenomyomectomy in women with severe uterine adenomyosis using a novel technique. Reprod BioMed Online 28:753–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Huang X, Huang Q, Chen S et al (2015) Efficacy of laparoscopic adenomyomectomy using double-flap method for diffuse uterine adenomyosis. BMC Womens Health 15:24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Kim TH, Lee HH, Chung SH, Lee W (2012) The triple-flap method for huge uterine adenomyosis with pelvic adhesions. Reprod BioMed Online 25:649author reply 650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Nishida M, Takano K, Arai Y, Ozone H, Ichikawa R (2010) Conservative surgical management for diffuse uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 94:715–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Nabeshima H, Murakami T, Terada Y, Noda T, Yaegashi N, Okamura K (2003) Total laparoscopic surgery of cystic adenomyoma under hydroultrasonographic monitoring. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:195–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I et al (2006) Laparoscopic adenomyomectomy and hysteroplasty: a novel method. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:150–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Suginami H, Tokushige M, Taniguchi F (2008) Surgical treatment of adenomyosis. Obstet Gynecol (Tokyo) 75:72–78

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Kishi Y, Yabuta M, Taniguchi F (2014) Who will benefit from uterus-sparing surgery in adenomyosis-associated subfertility? Fertil Steril 102:802–807e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Wang PH, Chao HT, Liu WM, Cheng MH, Chao KC, Fuh JL (2009) Is the surgical approach beneficial to subfertile women with symptomatic extensive adenomyosis? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 35:495–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Grimbizis GF, Mikos T, Tarlatzis B (2014) Uterus-sparing operative treatment for adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 101:472–487.e8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Younes G, Tulandi T (2018) Conservative surgery for adenomyosis and results: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:265–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Giana M, Montella F, Surico D, Vigone A, Bozzola C, Ruspa G (2005) Large intramyometrial cystic adenomyosis: a hysteroscopic approach with bipolar resectoscope: case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 26:462–463

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Ryo E, Takeshita S, Shiba M, Ayabe T (2006) Radiofrequency ablation for cystic adenomyosis: a case report. J Reprod Med 51:427–430

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Kamio M, Taguchi S, Oki T et al (2007) Isolated adenomyotic cyst associated with severe dysmenorrhea. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 33:388–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Kumakiri J, Kuroda K, Jinushi M (2010) Diagnosis, laparoscopic management, and histopathologic findings of juvenile cystic adenomyoma: a review of nine cases. Fertil Steril 94:862–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Sun W, Guo X, Zhu L, Fei X, Zhang Z, Li D (2018) Hysteroscopic treatment of a uterine cystic adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:374–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Cheung VYT (2017) Current status of high-intensity focused ultrasound for the management of uterine adenomyosis. Ultrasonography 36:95–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Fukunishi H, Funaki K, Sawada K, Yamaguchi K, Maeda T, Kaji Y (2008) Early results of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery of adenomyosis: analysis of 20 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:571–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Jingqi W, Lu Z, Jun Z et al (2018) Clinical usefulness of the microbubble contrast agent SonoVue in enhancing the effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of adenomyosis. J Ultrasound Med

  86. 86.

    Xiao-Ying Z, Ying-Shu G, Jiu-Mei C et al (2018) Effect of pre-treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue GnRH-α on high-intensity focussed ultrasound ablation for diffuse adenomyosis: a preliminary study. Int J Hyperth:1–9

  87. 87.

    Hou Y, Qin Z, Fan K, Xu Y, Huang X (2018) Combination therapeutic effects of high intensity focused ultrasound and metformin for the treatment of adenomyosis. Exp Ther Med 15:2104–2108

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Fan TY, Zhang L, Chen W et al (2012) Feasibility of MRI-guided high intensity focused ultrasound treatment for adenomyosis. Eur J Radiol 81:3624–3630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Liu X, Wang W, Wang Y, Wang Y, Li Q, Tang J (2016) Clinical predictors of long-term success in ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation treatment for adenomyosis: a retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e2443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Long L, Chen J, Xiong Y et al (2015) Efficacy of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for adenomyosis therapy and sexual life quality. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:11701–11707

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Zhou M, Chen JY, Tang LD, Chen WZ, Wang ZB (2011) Ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for adenomyosis: the clinical experience of a single center. Fertil Steril 95:900–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Wang W, Wang Y, Tang J (2009) Safety and efficacy of high intensity focused ultrasound ablation therapy for adenomyosis. Acad Radiol 16:1416–1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Lee JS, Hong GY, Park BJ, Kim TE (2015) Ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for uterine fibroid & adenomyosis: a single center experience from the Republic of Korea. Ultrason Sonochem 27:682–687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Ferrari F, Arrigoni F, Miccoli A et al (2016) Effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) in the uterine adenomyosis treatment: technical approach and MRI evaluation. Radiol Med 121:153–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Polina L, Nyapathy V, Mishra A, Yellamanthili H, Vallabhaneni MP (2012) Noninvasive treatment of focal adenomyosis with MR-guided focused ultrasound in two patients. Indian J Radiol Imaging 22:93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Kim KA, Yoon SW, Lee C et al (2011) Short-term results of magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery for patients with adenomyosis: symptomatic relief and pain reduction. Fertil Steril 95:1152–1155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Shui L, Mao S, Wu Q et al (2015) High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for adenomyosis: two-year follow-up results. Ultrason Sonochem 27:677–681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Wang S, Meng X, Dong Y (2016) The evaluation of uterine artery embolization as a nonsurgical treatment option for adenomyosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 133:202–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Kim MD, Kim YM, Kim HC et al (2011) Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic adenomyosis: a new technical development of the 1-2-3 protocol and predictive factors of MR imaging affecting outcomes. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:497–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Dueholm M (2018) Minimally invasive treatment of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol

  101. 101.

    de Bruijn AM, Lohle PN, Huirne JA et al (2018) Uterine artery embolization versus hysterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic adenomyosis: protocol for the randomized questa trial. JMIR Res Protoc 20:e47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Resnick NJ, Kim E, Patel RS, Lookstein RA, Nowakowski FS, Fischman AM (2014) Uterine artery embolization using a transradial approach: initial experience and technique. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:443–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Bilhim T, Pisco JM, Duarte M, Oliveira AG (2011) Polyvinyl alcohol particle size for uterine artery embolization: a prospective randomized study of initial use of 350-500μm particles versus initial use of 500-700μm particles. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Firouznia K, Ghanaati H, Sanaati M, Jalali AH, Shakiba M (2009) Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for symptomatic fibroids: a series of 15 pregnancies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1588–1592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Das C, Rathinam D, Manchanda S, Srivastava D (2017) Endovascular uterine artery interventions. Indian J Radiol Imaging 27:488

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Rabinovici J, Stewart EA (2006) New interventional techniques for adenomyosis. Best Pr Res Clin Obs Gynaecol 20:617–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Keung JJ, Spies JB, Caridi TM (2017) Uterine artery embolization: a review of current concepts. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 46:66–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Zhou J, He L, Liu P et al (2016) Outcomes in adenomyosis treated with uterine artery embolization are associated with lesion vascularity: a long-term follow-up study of 252 cases. PLoS One 11:e0165610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    de Bruijn AM, Smink M, Lohle PNM et al (2017) Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of adenomyosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28:1629–1642.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Caridi TM, Spies JB (2018) Management of adenomyosis. A review of characteristic imaging findings and treatment options, with an emphasis on the use of uterine artery embolization. Endovasc Today 17:57–61

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Hehenkamp WJK, Volkers NA, Birnie E, Reekers JA, Ankum WM (2008) Symptomatic uterine fibroids: treatment with uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy—results from the randomized clinical embolisation versus hysterectomy (EMMY) trial. Radiology 246:823–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Mohan PP, Hamblin MH, Vogelzang RL (2013) Uterine artery embolization and its effect on fertility. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:925–930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Adel Gamil for providing ultrasound images for this manuscript.


No funding was received for this work.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Author information




RD contributed to the manuscript preparation and revision. SAG and MGN contributed to the manuscript editing and revision, image collection, editing, and preparation. RM and YL contributed to the preparation of the manuscript draft and editing and revision of final manuscript. All authors significantly contributed to the preparation of this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riham Dessouky.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dessouky, R., Gamil, S.A., Nada, M.G. et al. Management of uterine adenomyosis: current trends and uterine artery embolization as a potential alternative to hysterectomy. Insights Imaging 10, 48 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Adenomyosis
  • Uterine artery embolization
  • Hysterectomy