Does transcervical resection of the endometrium for menorrhagia really avoid hysterectomy? Life table analysis of a large series

Endometrial ablation

Endometrial ablation (EA) includes a spectrum of procedures performed with or without hysteroscopic direction, designed to destroy the endometrium for the treatment of the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) secondary to a spectrum of causes, but most commonly those that are endometrial in origin (AUB-E) or ovulatory disorders (AUB-O). Resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA) is often mistakenly referred to as the "first generation" technique, while proprietary devices that do not use the resectoscope (nonresectoscopic EA or NREA) are often misperceived as "second generation" devices. Indeed, the origins of NREA date back to the late 19th century with the use of steam, and the early and mid 20th century, when radiofrequency and cryotherapy based NREA techniques were published - long before the resectoscope was used and reported. The NREA devices have also been mislabeled as "global", a misleading term borrowed from the marketing departments of device manufacturers - there is no device that predictably treats the entire endometrium. Consequently, none can be construed as being "global". Instead, EA is a procedure designed for women as an alternative to hysterectomy, or, perhaps, medical therapy, when future fertility is no longer desired. Women who select EA should anticipate a relatively low risk procedure that will likely reduce their HMB to normal levels or less. This paper will review the spectrum of EA techniques and devices, their clinical outcomes and adverse events, and explore their value compared to hysterectomy and selected medical therapies.

Impact of myomas on the results of transcervical resection of the endometrium

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate long-term hysterectomy rates after transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) performed by experienced surgeons in the presence and absence of intracavitary myomas.

DESIGN

Multicenter case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

PATIENTS

The study group comprised 456 women with myomas who met the inclusion criteria, and of these, 82 (17.98%) later underwent hysterectomy. The control group comprised 1438 women without myomas, and of these, 284 (19.75%) later underwent hysterectomy.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2004, standardized results were extracted from Hyskobase on the basis of a total of 1894 women aged 23 to 59 years. The women were identified as having or not having myomas, and data from both groups were statistically analyzed. Detailed information on myoma size and intramural involvement (type 0, 1, and 2) was collected.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

After TCRE, women with type 2 myomas, compared with those with type 0 myomas, were found to have a significantly higher risk of undergoing hysterectomy (p = .04), and women, including controls, with myomas >3.6 cm in greatest diameter were found to have a significantly higher risk of undergoing hysterectomy than were those with smaller myomas (p = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in risk of hysterectomy between type 0 and type 1 myomas or between type 1 and type 2 myomas. When hysterectomy rates between the myoma and control groups were compared, there was an increased risk of hysterectomy in the control group (p = .008). Multiple-step multivariate regression analysis of uterine and procedural characteristics of TCRE demonstrated that factors that were positive predictors of hysterectomy within 66 months after resection were younger age, inaccessible uterine corners, enlarged uterus, and pretreatment using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists.

CONCLUSION

When performing TCRE in women with intracavitary myomas, the chance of treatment success is worsened if they are of type 2 or their diameter is >3.5 cm. In addition, younger age increases the risk of hysterectomy and the need for pretreatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, or if the uterus is enlarged or the uterine corners are difficult to access during the procedure.

Long-term outcome of hysteroscopic endometrial resection with or without myomectomy in patients with menorrhagia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcomes and hysterectomy rates after hysteroscopic endometrial resection with or without myomectomy for menorrhagia.

STUDY DESIGN

Fifty-three women who had submucous myomas with intramural extension of less than 50% and smaller than 5 cm in diameter underwent endometrial resection and concomitant hysteroscopic myomectomy. Each of them was matched with a patient who had no submucous myomas and who had been treated by endometrial resection only. These two groups were compared for operative outcomes, additional procedures, outcome of menstrual bleeding and for subsequent hysterectomy, which was the endpoint of this study.

RESULTS

During the mean follow-up period of 6.5 years, 18 (34.6%) women with endometrial resection and myomectomy and 21 (39.6%) without myomectomy underwent at least one gynecological procedure. Hysterectomy was performed in 26.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.8-40.3] of the patients with myomectomy and in 17.0% (95% CI 9.2-29.2) of the patients without myomectomy (P = 0.22). The main indications for hysterectomy were pain and spotting bleeding in seven out of 14 cases with myomectomy and in four out of nine with endometrial resection only. Leiomyomas were found in 12 out of the 14 women who had hysterectomy after hysteroscopic myomectomy and in four out of nine with hysterectomy after endometrial resection only (P = 0.06). Most (75.6%) of the 82 women who had not required hysterectomy had reached menopause. All the patients without hysterectomy in both groups reported amenorrhea or slight bleeding, and this response maintained for years after the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Endometrial resection may be combined with hysteroscopic myomectomy without a significant increase or decrease in hysterectomy rates during a long-term follow-up.

Management of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Is Hysterectomy the Radical Mastectomy of Gynecology?

Both hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding and radical mastectomy for breast cancer are steeped in the history of surgery and have recently been challenged as being too radical for the disorder at hand. Radical mastectomy has largely been replaced with local removal of the tumor with subsequent radiation and/or chemotherapy. Alternatives to hysterectomy include a number of medical interventions, most notably intrauterine progestin-releasing systems, and endometrial ablation, a procedure that has a relatively high success rate and one that is now feasible for many women in an office or procedure room setting. However, although radical mastectomy rates have dropped precipitously, hysterectomy rates, at least in the United States remain relatively stable. Determining the proportion of hysterectomies that are done for heavy menstrual bleeding is difficult, largely because of coding issues, so it is difficult to measure the impact of new medical and minimally invasive surgical procedures. Nevertheless, it seems clear that many women are not exposed to the plethora of options to hysterectomy, a fact that may reflect a number of issues that may include training, skill, and financial incentives or disincentives. Clearly, options to hysterectomy are not a panacea, but if women are empowered to select from all of the options available, the rate of hysterectomy for bleeding should decrease while maintaining, or even enhancing the patient's satisfaction with care.

Endometrial Ablation: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?

Endometrial ablation (EA) is targeted destruction of the endothelial surface of the uterine cavity. The procedure was originally designed as a less invasive alternative to hysterectomy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding unrelated to structural pathology of the uterus, that was not responsive to medical therapy. More recently it has become apparent that the procedure can be performed in the presence of submucous leiomyomas, providing they meet a number of size and location criteria. The first EA serie as published in Germany in the 1930s, but the procedure did not attract much attention until the latter part of the 20th century. Currently, EA can be performed under endoscopic direction with the neodymium:yttrium alumnum garnet laser, with a radiofrequency resectoscope, or with an expanding array of nonresectoscopic EA systems. It is apparent that most but not all of the complications associated with resectoscopic endometrial ablation are eliminated with nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, but serious morbidity has been reported with all of the newer systems to date. Success and patient satisfaction seem to be enduring in the majority of well-selected patients treated in clinical trials, but repeat surgery, usually hysterectomy, is performed in 25% to 40% by 5 years after surgery. Increased efficiencies should be realized if the procedure could be moved to an office setting.

Endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates the currently available evidence regarding resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA) and the various nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA) techniques used for heavy menstrual bleeding.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laser endometrial ablation is now used infrequently, largely because of procedure time, but also because of the cost and training associated with the technique. REA can be performed in a wider spectrum of endometrial cavity configurations than NREA and, at least in expert hands, remains the gold standard. Each of the five available types of NREA device possesses advantages and disadvantages over the others with respect to variables such as treatment time, required cervical dilation, and size and configuration of the endometrial cavity. All provide acceptable results that are comparable to that of REA in expert hands. Serious complications seem to be less common with NREA, but uterine perforation and bowel or other visceral injury can still occur. When endometrial-ablation patients were followed for up to 5 years, repeat surgery rates ranged from 20 to 40%, thereby eroding both the direct and indirect treatment-related resource utilization. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices demonstrate similar clinical and patient-satisfaction outcomes to endometrial ablation but can be inserted in the office and allow maintenance of fertility.

SUMMARY

Both REA and NREA provide at least short- to intermediate-term options to hysterectomy for patients with heavy menstrual bleeding and normal or near-normal endometrial cavities. Consequently, the ideal candidates are likely those who are within 5 years of menopause.

Endometrial hydrothermablation: A comparison of short-term clinical effectiveness in patients with normal endometrial cavities and those with intracavitary pathology

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate preprocedure and postprocedure health related quality of life scores and patient satisfaction of women treated with hydrothermablation for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) with and without endometrial intracavitary pathology.

DESIGN

Cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Two institutions from a large managed care organization.

PATIENTS

Forty-seven English-speaking premenopausal women with AUB, both with and without leiomyomas or polyps in the endometrial cavity treated from January 2001 through March 2003.

INTERVENTION

Patients had been treated with endometrial hydrothermablation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A standardized system, validated in English (the Ruta score), was used for evaluating health-related quality-of-life impact of uterine bleeding. Following the index procedure, patients were asked to assess both baseline and current status. A simple five-point satisfaction scale also was administered. Outcomes from subjects with and without documented endometrial structural pathology were compared. Follow-up ranged from 5 to 25 months with a mean of 12.7 (SD 5.2). Twenty women in the cohort had normal endometrial cavities, and 27 demonstrated intracavitary pathology, most often leiomyomas. For both groups, baseline and follow-up scores were similar. Satisfaction scores also were similar with 80.0% of the subjects with normal endometrial cavities and 72.7% of those with abnormal cavities satisfied or highly satisfied with the outcome.

CONCLUSION

Endometrial hydrothermablation seemed to be effective for AUB-affected women, both with and without pathologic lesions in the endometrial cavity.

Endometrial Ablation with a Thermal Balloon: The First 10 Years

Thermal balloon endometrial ablation (BEA) was introduced approximately 10 years ago as the first automated replacement for hysteroscopic endometrial ablation (HEA) in women with chronic abnormal uterine bleeding. Putative advantages included similar or improved clinical outcomes, and reduction of both adverse outcomes and the total cost of care, all with reduced requirements for operator skill. The published literature contains 1191 cases of BEA performed with instruments from 4 manufacturers, including a number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the devices with HEA, usually performed by experts. In comparative RCTs, clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes as well as patient satisfaction and rate of subsequent uterine surgery appear similar in follow-up intervals that ranged from 1 to 5 years. There is a suggestion of reduced risk of adverse events with BEA, but the differences are small. There are no rigorous evaluations of resource use. The level of surgeon expertise in HEA arms of available RCTs potentially improves quality and decreases complications over what might be expected in the general population. Thus BEA seems equivalent to HEA when performed by expert surgeons with respect to most outcomes. Effectiveness studies of the two interventions should be conducted in community settings and should evaluate resource use.

Dysfunctional uterine bleeding: advances in diagnosis and treatment

Dysfunctional uterine bleeding occurs during the reproductive years unrelated to structural uterine abnormalities. Ovulatory dysfunctional uterine bleeding occurs secondary to defects in local endometrial hemostasis; while anovulatory dysfunctional uterine bleeding is a systemic disorder, occurring secondary to endocrinologic, neurochemical, or pharmacologic mechanisms. Evaluation of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding and identifying those with dysfunctional uterine bleeding is achieved with a combination of the following: history; physical examination; and judicious use of laboratory evaluation, endometrial sampling and uterine imaging, with sonographic techniques and/or hysteroscopy. Coagulopathies should be considered as should the notion that intramural and subserosal myomas are unlikely to contribute to AUB. High-quality evidence suggests that medical therapy is frequently successful, and newer approaches, such as local delivery of progestins via intrauterine devices, appear to be particularly promising and devoid of systemic side effects. For those intolerant of medical therapy, and/or for whom fertility is no longer desired, a number of minimally invasive surgical options for hysterectomy now exist and are collectively termed endometrial ablation. Endometrial ablation may be performed with or without hysteroscopic guidance. There is an increasing body of evidence that suggests that nonhysteroscopic endometrial ablation may be at least as effective as hysteroscopic endometrial ablation, even when the hysteroscopic procedure is performed by experts.