Efficacy and influencing factor analysis of high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for abdominal wall endometriosis: a case series

Figures & data

Table 1. Basic clinical Characteristics of AWE patients.

Variables	Values
No. of patients	80
No. of lesions	84
Age (years), mean ± SD (range)	32.98 ± 0.56 (23–46)
BMI (kg/m^2), M (IQR)	21.77(20.04–24.57)
Duration of symptoms before treatment (years), M (IQR)	2 (1–4)
A history of previous AWE lesion section, n (%)
Yes	5 (6.3%)
No	75 (93.7%)
Symptom, n (%)
Protrusion of the skin	77 (96.3%)
Pain on palpation	80 (100%)
Lesion diameter (mm), M (IQR)	25 (17.25–34.75)
Number of lesions, n (%)
One	76 (95.0%)
Two	4 (5.0%)
Lesion position, n (%)
At the middle of the incision	19 (22.6%)
To the left of the incision	27 (32.2%)
To the right of the incision	38 (45.2%)

BMI: body mass index; SD: standard deviation; M: median; IQR: interquartile range.

Table 2. Results of patients with AWE after HIFU treatment.

Variable	Data
Treatment time (min), M (IQR)	64.5 (50.25–85.75)
Sonication time (s), M (IQR)	339 (225–507.5)
Average sonication power (W), M (IQR)	113.5 (96–143.75)
Sonication intensity (s/h), mean ± SD (range)	321.65 ± 10.096 (85–485)
Grey scale change, n (%)
Overall	15 (17.9%)
Agglomerative	69 (82.1%)

SD: standard deviation; M: median; IQR: interquartile range.

Table 3. Side effects or complications of patients with rectus abdominis endometriosis after HIFU treatment (n = 80).

SIR class	Complications	No.
A	Skin thermalgia	10
B	Pain in the treatment area	17
B	Hematuria	1

HIFU: high-intensity focused ultrasound; SIR: Society of Interventional Radiology.

Table 4. The efficacy and follow-up of patients with AWE after treatment with HIFU ablation.

Follow-up time	Effective		Non-effective	Efficacy (%)
	Cure	Improvement
3 months	44	17	19	76.3
12 months	48	14	15	80.5
24 months	47	10	6	90.5

HIFU: high-intensity focused ultrasound; AWE: abdominal wall endometriosis.

Figure 1. Cumulative reintervention rate.

Table 5. Factors influencing 3-month efficacy of HIFU treatment for AWE.

Variables	Regression coefficient	Std. error	Wald value	p-value	OR value	95%CI for OR
Disease duration	0.131	0.137	0.906	.341	1.140	0.871–1.491
	0.007	0.005	1.659	.198	1.007	0.996–1.017
Lesion diameter	−0.064	0.028	5.218	.022	0.938	0.888–0.991
Sonication intensity	0.009	0.004	6.277	.012	1.009	1.002–1.017
Average sonication power	0.007	0.005	1.659	.198	1.007	0.996–1.017
Grey scale change	0.316	0.706	0.200	.654	1.372	0.344–5.479

HIFU: high-intensity focused ultrasound; AWE: abdominal wall endometriosis; Std. error: standard error; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.

Table 6. Factors influencing 6-month efficacy of HIFU treatment for AWE.

Variables	Regression coefficient	Std. error	Wald value	p-value	OR value	95%CI for OR
BMI	−0.250	0.137	3.308	.069	0.779	0.595–1.020
Disease duration	0.219	0.160	1.877	.171	1.245	0.910–1.704
Lesion diameter	−0.072	0.034	4.398	.036	0.930	0.869–0.995
Sonication intensity	0.010	0.005	5.216	.022	1.010	1.001–1.020
Average sonication power	0.020	0.012	2.576	.109	1.020	0.996–1.045
Greyscale change	0.579	0.772	0.563	.453	1.784	0.393–8.102

HIFU: high-intensity focused ultrasound; AWE: abdominal wall endometriosis; Std. error: standard error; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; BMI: body mass index.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24412537.v3.