Prognostic factors for the success of endometrial ablation in the treatment of menorrhagia with special reference to previous cesarean section

Placenta accreta after postpartum tubal sterilisation and Novasure® endometrial ablation

Although rare, pregnancy can still occur after both tubal sterilization and endometrial ablation. The resulting pregnancy is often complicated by ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and adherent placenta. Endometrial ablation is not a contraceptive.

Water Vapor Endometrial Ablation for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: 36-Month Follow-Up of a Prospective, Multicenter Pivotal Clinical Trial

Study Objective

To report 36-month follow-up of a pivotal trial that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the AEGEA Water Vapor System for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) secondary to Abnormal Uterine Bleeding due to Endometrial disorders or Leiomyomata (AUB-E and AUB-L).

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial at 14 sites in the US, Canada, Mexico, and the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria included a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment (PBLAC, Higham) score ≥150 and allowed treatment of subjects with leiomyomata classified by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Types 2–6 up to 4 cm in diameter, a uterine cavity up to 12 cm in length (uterine sound), Essure^® contraceptive inserts and/or prior cesarean section. Follow-up assessments were conducted annually up to 36 months after endometrial ablation. The following outcomes were evaluated for 125/155 women: gynecological adverse events, qualitative assessment of menstrual flow, quality of life using the Menorrhagia Impact Questionnaire (MIQ), patient satisfaction, and medical or surgical reintervention for AUB.

Results

One hundred and fifty-five premenopausal women aged 30 to 50 years were enrolled from September 2014 through May 2015. Water vapor endometrial ablation was performed under varying anesthesia/sedation regimens in offices, surgical centers and operating rooms. There were 6 procedure-related adverse events that occurred between 12- and 36-month follow-up, 1 of which was deemed serious (hematometra managed successfully hysteroscopically). Seventy-two percent reported amenorrhea or light menstrual flow. The mean quality of life (MIQ) score improved from 14.7 at baseline to 6.4. Ninety-three percent reported “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” Post-ablation hysterectomy for any indication was performed in 6.5% of patients, and the total rate of re-intervention for bleeding was 7.1%.

Conclusion

Outcomes 36-months after water vapor endometrial ablation for HMB are consistent with 12- and 24-month follow-up results in all subgroups evaluated. The AEGEA Water Vapor System increases the population of patients amenable to efficacious and acceptable treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB) due to Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB-E,-L). CinicalTrials.gov NCT01979861 registered November 8, 2013.

Prognostic Factors for the Failure of Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of prognostic factors predicting failure of second-generation endometrial ablation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from 1988 until February 2019. The search was conducted without language restrictions using the following search terms: "endometrial ablation," "prognosis," "predict," "long term," "late onset," "outcome."

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The literature search provided a total of 990 studies. All types of studies reporting about prognostic factors of second-generation endometrial ablation failure were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

After screening for eligibility, 56 studies were included in this review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. In these 56 studies, 157,830 women were included. We evaluated 10 prognostic factors: age, myomas, history of tubal ligation, body mass index, parity, preexisting dysmenorrhea, caesarean delivery, bleeding pattern, uterus position, and uterus length. Meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome (surgical reintervention) to estimate summary treatment effects. Younger age (aged 35 years or younger, odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% CI 1.19-2.36; aged 40 years or younger, OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.30-1.93; aged 45 years or younger OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.28-2.07), prior tubal ligation (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.73), and preexisting dysmenorrhea (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.41-3.19) were associated with an increased risk of surgical reintervention. Studies investigating the prognostic factors myomas and obesity showed conflicting results.

CONCLUSION

Younger age, prior tubal ligation and preexisting dysmenorrhea were found to be associated with failure of endometrial ablation. Obesity and the presence of large submucous myomas may be associated with failure, as well, though more research is necessary to estimate the influence of these factors. It is important to take the results of this review into account when counselling women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019126247.

Endometrial Ablation

The destruction of the endometrium in women with heavy menstrual bleeding has been used for well over a century, and the various techniques of delivering forms of thermal energy have been modified over the years to ensure a safe and effective treatment approach. Today, 6 nonresectoscopic devices are approved for use in the United States in addition to resectoscopic techniques that rely on the skillful use of the operative hysteroscope. Regardless of the technique used, endometrial ablation uniformly reduces menstrual blood loss, improves general and menstrual-related quality of life, and prevents hysterectomy in 4 of 5 women who undergo the procedure. When patients are appropriately selected, outcomes are optimized, and risks of serious complications are minimized. This article reviews the literature with singular reference to nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation procedures including historical background, appropriate patient selection, clinical outcomes data, complications, and special or unique considerations.

Late-onset endometrial ablation failure

Endometrial ablation, first reported in the 19th century, has gained wide acceptance in the gynecologic community as an important tool for the management of abnormal uterine bleeding when medical management has been unsuccessful or contraindicated. The introduction of global endometrial ablation (GEA) devices beginning in 1997 has provided unsurpassed safety addressing many of the concerns associated with their resectoscopic predecessors. As of this writing the GEA market has surpassed a half-million devices in the United States per annum and has an expected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) projected to be 5.5% from 2016 to 2024.

While the short term safety and efficacy of these devices has been reported in numerous clinical trials we only recently are becoming aware of the high incidence of late-onset endometrial ablation failures (LOEAFs) associated with these procedures. Currently, about a quarter of women who undergo a GEA procedure will eventually require a hysterectomy while an unknown number have less than satisfactory results. In order to reduce these suboptimal outcomes physicians must better understand the etiology and risk factors that predispose a patient toward the development of LOEAF as well as current knowledge of patient and procedure selection for EA as well as treatment options for these delayed complications.

•

Over 500,000 endometrial ablations (EAs) are performed in the U. S. each year.

•

Late-onset endometrial ablation failures (LOEAFs) are the most common complication of EA.

•

25% of women who undergo EA will require hysterectomy within 5 years.

•

Reducing the incidence of LOEAFs requires improved patient selection for EA.

•

Ultrasound-guided reoperative hysteroscopic surgery (UGRHS) reduces the need hysterectomy following LOEAF.

Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection Versus Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term efficacy of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) and hysteroscopic endometrial ablation (HEA) in treating persistent abnormal uterine bleeding.

DESIGN

Canadian Task Force II-2.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty-three women treated for abnormal uterine bleeding by LSH or HEA.

INTERVENTION

Long-term follow-up assessment of reintervention rate and quality of life (QoL) using the Quality Metric's Health Survey Short Form 12.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

This study is the long-term follow-up of a randomized control trial conducted in 2003 comparing LSH and HEA in terms of reoperation rate and QoL. Starting from November 2010 all patients included in the first trial were invited to participate in this study and clinically evaluated through vaginal examination and transvaginal ultrasound. After a mean follow-up of 14.4 years, 29% of patients (20/71) treated with HEA underwent further surgery, whereas no patients after LSH had symptom recurrence. The reintervention rate was significantly higher in the HEA group (p < .0001), with a relative risk of 1.39 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.61). The assessment of QoL demonstrated a higher score, in both physical and mental components, in the LSH group (p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The lower reintervention rate and the better physical and mental health scores make LSH a more suitable procedure to treat recurrent abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with HEA.