{"paper_id":"8705b4e9-2684-45c1-b54d-40290b5d4054","body_text":"AGE, UTERINE WALL LOCALIZATION, AND LIFESTYLE-RELATED FACTORS IN WOMEN WITH ADENOMYOSIS\nAuthors/Creators\nDescription\nAdenomyosis is a common condition among women of reproductive age; however, its clinical presentation and distribution patterns are not uniform. In some patients, the disease is confined to a single uterine wall, whereas in others it presents as a diffuse process. Differences in age, body weight, daily habits, and environmental factors may contribute to these variations. This study descriptively and analytically evaluated data from 30 women with adenomyosis confirmed by ultrasound (US) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Age, body mass index (BMI), uterine wall localization, previous uterine interventions, low physical activity, chronic stress, sleep deprivation, tobacco exposure, and unhealthy dietary habits were assessed. A risk index ranging from 0 to 5 points was developed based on five lifestyle-related factors. Women aged 30–39 years accounted for 66.7% of the cohort. Regarding localization, diffuse or multi-wall involvement was observed in 40.0% of cases, posterior wall involvement in 26.7%, and anterior wall as well as lateral-fundal localization in 16.7% each. Chronic stress was identified in 60.0% of patients, low physical activity in 53.3%, and sleep deprivation in 50.0%. Among the nine patients with a high-risk index, seven had diffuse adenomyosis. In this group, the mean number of ultrasound findings was 4.9 ± 0.8, and the MRI-measured junctional zone thickness was 14.7 ± 1.8 mm. In the low-risk group, these values were 2.9 ± 0.9 and 9.8 ± 1.4 mm, respectively. These findings suggest that, in addition to clinical symptoms and imaging examinations, a targeted assessment of lifestyle-related factors and medical history plays an important role in the evaluation of patients with adenomyosis.\nFiles\n60-64.pdf\nFiles\n(230.7 kB)\n| Name | Size | Download all |\n|---|---|---|\n|\nmd5:c6ab69ee2e7e3ad6e72eecb4e7a76233\n|\n230.7 kB | Preview Download |\nAdditional details\nReferences\n- 1.Dason E.S., Maxim M., Sanders A. va boshq. Guideline No. 437: Diagnosis and management of adenomyosis. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2023;45(6):417-429.e1.\n- 2.Harmsen M.J., Van den Bosch T., de Leeuw R.A. va boshq. Consensus on revised definitions of MUSA features of adenomyosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2022;60(1):118-131.\n- 3.Alcazar J.L., Vara J., Usandizaga C. va boshq. Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyosis: systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2023;161(2):397-405.\n- 4.Ren Q., Yuan M., Wang G. Role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of disease severity and treatment efficacy in adenomyosis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2024;309(2):363-371.\n- 5.French H.M., Zhang W., Movilla P.R. va boshq. Adenomyosis and fertility: does adenomyosis impact fertility and does treatment improve outcomes. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2022;34(4):227-236.","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}