A.M. IPTYSHEV, V.B. TSKHAY, G.T. MIKAILLY, A.S. RADCHENKO, YA.A. YAKOVLEVA

 Prof. V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University, Krasnoyarsk

Contact details:

Iptyshev A.M. — Assistant Lecturer of the Department of Perinatology, Obstetrics and Gynecology

Address: 2A/1 Akademika Kirenskogo St., 660074 Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation, tel.: +7-923-369-88-24, e-mail: alexandriptishev@gmail.com

Severe forms of diffuse adenomyosis are characterized by aggressive course and severe clinical symptoms.

The purpose was to evaluate the quality of life of women with severe diffuse adenomyosis after organ-preserving surgical treatment.

Material and methods. The study included 62 patients with diffuse adenomyosis of grades III and IV. Quality of life was assessed using standardized questionnaires (VAS, SF-36, EHP-30, and FSFI) before organ-sparing surgery (adenomyomectomy using the H. Osada technique), 12 and 24 months after it.

Results. All patients showed a significant reduction in pain (according to VAS, SF-36, and EHP-30 scales) during the 24-month follow-up, with complete pain relief in 40% of cases (p < 0.05). In 100% of cases, patients considered themselves healthy and reported a full sense of strength and energy (p < 0.05). In 89% of cases, sexual comfort was achieved due to the disappearance of dyspareunia and a reduced duration of menstruation.

Conclusion. A comprehensive assessment of the quality of life in patients with adenomyosis before and after surgical treatment, based on the use of various questionnaires and scales, allowed for an objective evaluation of their long-term postoperative outcome.

Key words: adenomyosis, organ-preserving treatment, quality of life, questionnaire, rating scales.

REFERENCES

1. Capezzuoli T., Toscano F., Ceccaroni M., Roviglione G., Stepniewska A., Fambrini M. et al. Conservative surgical treatment for adenomyosis: New options for looking beyond uterus removal. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol, 2024, vol. 95, 102507. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102507
2. Namazova M.R., Orlova E.S., Artemova O.I. Comparison of pathogenetic aspects of the development of gynecological pathology (literature review). Sibirskoe meditsinskoe obozrenie, 2023, no. 4, pp. 5–14 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20333/25000136-2023-4-5-14
3. Mikos T., Lioupis M., Anthoulakis C., Grimbizis G.F. The outcome of fertility-sparing and nonfertility-sparing surgery for the treatment of adenomyosis. a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 309–331.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.08.004
4. Gorpenko A.A., Chuprynin V.D., Smol’nova T.Yu., Buralkina N.A. Clinical and anamnestic features and quality of life of patients with nodular and diffuse adenomyosis. Meditsinskiy sovet, 2021, no. 13, pp. 68–76 (in Russ.).
5. Liang Y., Xiao T., Zhang H. Comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy of conservative treatment for adenomyosis using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. J. Health Popul. Nutr, 2025, vol. 44 (1), p. 116. DOI: 10.1186/s41043-025-00852-z
6. Orazov M.R., Mikhaleva L.M., Khamoshina M.B., Barinova E.K., Tsaregorodtseva M.V., Besman I.V., Ibragimova V.Yu. Infertility associated with adenomyosis. Literature review. Klinicheskiy razbor v obshchey meditsine, 2023, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 34–40 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.47407/kr2023.4.3.00219
7. Moldassarina R.S. Modern view on the diagnostics and treatment adenomyosis. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet, 2023, vol. 308 (1), pp. 171–181. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-06982-1
8. Dason E.S., Maxim M., Sanders A., Papillon-Smith J., Ng D., Chan C., Sobel M. Guideline No. 437: diagnosis and management of adenomyosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can., 2023, vol. 45 (6), pp. 417–429.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.04.008
9. Bezhenar’ V.F., Krylov K.Yu., Makarenko T.A., Matukhin V.I., Rukhlyada N.N., Tskhay V.B. Surgical experience of operations for adenomyosis and assessment of reproductive outcomes. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya, 2023, no. 2, pp. 79–86 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/aig.2022.263
10. WHO defines Quality of Life as an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns, available at: https://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whoqol-qualityoflife/en/
11. Kiek M.A., Dolgov G.V. Assessment of the quality of life of gynecological patients. Sibirskiy nauchnyy meditsinskiy zhurnal, 2022, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 30–40 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18699/SSMJ20220103
12. Lebedeva A.A., Leont’ev D.A. Modern approaches to the study of quality of life: from objective contexts to subjective ones. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo, 2022, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 142–162 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17759/sps.2022130409