First of all, I would like to express my opinion about minimally invasive treatment. If fibroids can be treated with measures that are less invasive to the patient, then the less invasive ones must be chosen. As a patient, you always hope that you can take medicine to solve the problem, but unfortunately there is no medicine that can treat fibroids. Some medicines are used as preoperative medicine for a short period of time, usually as preoperative preparation, but if you expect long-term effectiveness, unfortunately, there is none. After there is no one drug that can effectively treat fibroids, then the next step to consider for fibroids that need treatment is how to choose a treatment option. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages, and if when one method is all advantages and no disadvantages, then none of the other methods need to exist. Currently, the treatment options for uterine fibroids are probably laparoscopic/ hysteroscopic (commonly known as minimally invasive) treatment, focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment, arterial embolization (UAE) treatment, cathodic surgery treatment, and open surgery treatment. Other treatment options include endometrial ablation and the placement of the Manned Ring, both of which are not treatments for fibroids, but to relieve the symptoms of heavy menstruation by controlling the bleeding from the uterus. Then we concentrate on the minimally invasive and non-invasive treatment of fibroids. Overall, if a less invasive treatment modality is available for the patient, the first consideration is a less invasive treatment program. In terms of pain level, generally speaking, HEF and arterial embolization are less harmful to the body, followed by cathodic surgery, and again minimally invasive laparoscopic or hysteroscopic surgery, with open surgery as the last consideration and as a last resort. The advantage of the treatment is that there is no incision on the body and the recovery is so fast that the patient can even walk back to the ward by himself after the treatment. Ultrasound therapy is a treatment option that has emerged in the last 10 years or so. Unlike traditional surgery, it is not possible to obtain pathological results by beating the tumor through the belly with ultrasound, and the other thing is that uterine fibroids may not usually obtain complete eradication after ablation, and most of the fibroids we have observed can obtain a 50% reduction in volume 3 months after treatment, and 20% of them may 2 years after surgery The treatment is not effective and another treatment option needs to be considered. Arterial embolization is a treatment that involves inserting a small catheter at the base of the thigh and injecting an embolic agent into the artery supplying the fibroid. The results at 2 years are similar to those of HEFA, with 20% of patients requiring retreatment. In addition, 5% of patients are at risk of ovarian failure. If possible, the recovery is faster, but the surgeon’s surgical skills and patient selection are relatively strict. If it is possible to complete the surgery, the benefits are greater. Hysteroscopic surgery is suitable for patients with submucosal fibroids because there is no incision in the abdominal wall and recovery is faster after surgery. Laparoscopic surgery has gradually become a mainstream treatment, with a wide range of indications, and is becoming the choice of many doctors and patients because of its small wound and fast recovery. However, there are more and more studies confirming the advantages of laparoscopy and more and more recognition from patients, and many doctors who do not do laparoscopy and only do open surgery are slowly learning to do laparoscopy. The disadvantage of laparoscopy over open surgery is the lack of tactile sensation and the fact that laparoscopic suturing is relatively difficult if one lacks training, so certain indications need to be mastered. Generally, if the number of myomas is excessive (more than 5, some say more than 10), or too large (more than 10 cm), other surgical options may be more available. Open surgery, relatively speaking, has a wider range of indications, and most of the problems that cannot be solved by other indications can be solved by open surgery, but its postoperative wound pain is obvious, traumatic and slow recovery are its disadvantages. Recently, I read some articles on the internet and expressed different opinions about some websites that over-exaggerate the so-called non-invasive and minimally invasive treatments for uterine fibroids. As a gynecologist, I do surgery, I also do focused ultrasound treatment of fibroids, and I have recommended to some patients to radiology the use of uterine artery embolization. Unlike some doctors who choose only one method, I have to be more comprehensive in my understanding, and I am definitely not an absolute admirer of new technology. At this stage, any treatment has its pros and cons, otherwise, if one method is absolutely good, the other methods would not exist. At least for the moment, there is no one-size-fits-all method. The surgical removal of the uterus is not all wrong, some people on the Internet write too much, saying that hysterectomy is what damages the organs, causing what and what, if it is necessary, then when necessary, hysterectomy is the most thorough surgical way to solve fibroids, for a multiple fibroids, and the uterus is particularly large, Hefu is not a good choice, otherwise post-operative recurrence is inevitable. Of course, it definitely depends on age and fertility requirements. If one has fertility requirements and is young, I would never recommend hysterectomy to my patients, but if one is approaching perimenopause and has large fibroids, even without excluding malignant changes, hysterectomy is the right choice. If some fibroids are too large, then open abdomen is also necessary, otherwise there will be more bleeding, slower recovery, smaller abdominal opening, but perhaps more physical trauma. However, some people hold the old idea that laparoscopic surgery is not clean compared with open surgery, and the idea that laparoscopic wounds are small and traumatic inside is also a viewpoint to be eliminated, and the advantages of minimally invasive surgery over open surgery are undeniable. To be a doctor, you must objectively evaluate new technologies and methods. I am not opposed to them, but I definitely do not want to follow them blindly. The internet is a good thing, but it should never mislead our internet users. I hope that my views are a relatively objective guide for those who seek medical care.