Outpatient microwave endometrial ablation: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial without endometrial preparation versus standard day surgery with endometrial preparation

Risk of Hysterectomy After Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of hysterectomy after nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

The EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible articles from inception until June 13, 2022. We used combinations of search terms for endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Articles included in the review described the incidence of hysterectomy at a specific point in time after ablation with a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The literature search yielded a total of 3,022 hits. A total of 53 studies met our inclusion and exclusion criteria, including six retrospective studies, 24 randomized controlled trials, and 23 prospective studies. A total of 48,071 patients underwent endometrial ablation between 1992 and 2017. Follow-up duration varied between 12 and 120 months. Analyses per follow-up moment showed 4.3% hysterectomy rate at 12 months of follow-up (n=29 studies), 11.1% at 18 months (n=1 study), 8.0% at 24 months (n=11 studies), 10.2% at 36 months (n=12 studies), 7.6% at 48 months (n=2 studies), and 12.4% at 60 months (n=6 studies). Two studies reported a mean hysterectomy rate at 10 years after ablation of 21.3%. Minimal clinically relevant differences in hysterectomy rates were observed among the different study designs. Furthermore, we found no significant differences in hysterectomy rate among the different nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices.

CONCLUSION

The risk of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation seems to increase from 4.3% after 1 year to 12.4% after 5 years. Clinicians can use the results of this review to counsel patients about the 12% risk of hysterectomy 5 years after endometrial ablation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020156281.

Pre-operative endometrial thinning agents before endometrial destruction for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding is one of the most common reasons for referral of premenopausal women to a gynaecologist. Although medical therapy is generally first line, many women eventually will require further treatment. Endometrial ablation by hysteroscopic and more recent "second-generation" devices such as balloon, radiofrequency or microwave ablation offers a day-case surgical alternative to hysterectomy. Complete endometrial destruction is one of the main determinants of treatment success. Surgery is most effective if undertaken when endometrial thickness is less than four millimeters. One option is to perform the surgery in the immediate postmenstrual phase, which is not always practical. The other option is to use hormonal agents that induce endometrial thinning pre-operatively. The most commonly evaluated agents are goserelin (a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue, or GnRHa) and danazol. Other GnRH analogues and progestogens have also been studied, although fewer data are available. It has been suggested that these agents will reduce operating time, improve the intrauterine operating environment and reduce absorption of fluid used for intraoperative uterine cavity distension. They may also improve long-term outcomes, including menstrual loss and dysmenorrhoea.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of pre-operative endometrial thinning agents (GnRH agonists, danazol, estrogen-progestins and progestogens) versus another agent or placebo when given before endometrial destruction in premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched to April 2013 for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria: the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO.Other electronic sources of trials included trial registers for ongoing and registered trials; citation indexes; conference abstracts in the Web of Knowledge; the LILACS database for trials from the Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking world; PubMed; and the OpenSIGLE database and Google for grey literature.All searches were performed in consultation with the MDSG Trials Search Co-ordinator.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they compared the effects of these agents with one other, or with placebo or no treatment, on relevant intraoperative and postoperative treatment outcomes. Selection of trials was carried out independently by two review authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias and extracted data on surgical outcomes, effectiveness outcomes, proportion of women requiring further surgical therapy during follow-up, endometrial outcome measures, acceptability of use outcomes and quality of life. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Dichotomous data were combined for meta-analysis with RevMan software using the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs). Continuous data were combined for meta-analysis with RevMan software using an inverse variance method to estimate the pooled mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The overall quality of evidence for the main findings was assessed with the use of GRADE working group methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies with 1969 women were included in this review. These studies compared GnRHa, danazol and progestogens versus placebo or no treatment; GnRHa versus danazol, progestogens, GnRH antagonists or dilatation & curettage; and danazol versus progestogens. Four studies performed more than one comparison.When compared with no treatment, GnRHa used before hysteroscopic resection were associated with a higher rate of postoperative amenorrhoea at 12 months (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0, 7 RCTs, 605 women, moderate heterogeneity; I(2) = 40%) and at 24 months (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.52, 2 RCTs, 357 women, no heterogeneity; I(2) = 0%), a slightly shorter duration of surgery (-3.5 minutes, 95% CI -4.7 to -2.3, 5 RCTs, 156 women, substantial heterogeneity; I(2) = 72%) and greater ease of surgery (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.46, 2 RCTs, 415 women, low heterogeneity; I(2) = 4%). Postoperative dysmenorrhoea was reduced (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87, 2 RCTs, 133 women, no heterogeneity; I(2) = 0%). The use of GnRHa had no effect on intraoperative complication rates (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 6.06, 5 RCTs, 592 women, no heterogeneity; I(2) = 0%), and participant satisfaction with this surgery was high irrespective of the use of pre-operative endometrial thinning agents (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05, 6 RCTs, 599 women, low heterogeneity; I(2) = 11%). GnRHa produced more consistent endometrial atrophy than was produced by danazol (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.75, 2 RCTs, 142 women, no heterogeneity; I(2) = 0%). For other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, any differences were minimal, and no benefits of GnRHa pretreatment were noted in studies in which women underwent second-generation ablation techniques. Both GnRHa and danazol produced side effects in a significant proportion of women, although few studies reported these in detail. Few randomised data were available to allow assessment of the effectiveness of progestogens as endometrial thinning agents. When reported, the long-term effects of endometrial thinning agents on benefits such as postoperative amenorrhoea were reduced with time.The main study weaknesses were that most participants received no follow-up beyond 24 months and that the studies used a small sample size. Heterogeneity for outcomes reported ranged from none to substantial. More than half the trials had no blinding of participants or outcome assessment. Most of the trials were determined to have uncertain selection and reporting bias, as they did not report allocation concealment and evidence of selective reporting was noted. The quality of reporting of adverse events was generally poor, but, when described in the studies, they included menopausal symptoms such as hot flushes, vaginal dryness, hirsutism, decreased libido and voice changes, as well as other side effects such as headache and weight gain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that endometrial thinning with GnRHa and danazol before hysteroscopic surgery improves operating conditions and short-term postoperative outcomes. GnRHa produced slightly more consistent endometrial thinning than was produced by danazol, although both achieved satisfactory results. The effect of these agents on longer-term postoperative outcomes was reduced with time. No benefits of GnRHa pretreatment were apparent with second-generation ablation techniques. Also, side effects were more common when these agents were used.

Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a cost effectiveness analysis comparing first and second generation endometrial ablative techniques, hysterectomy, and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding.

DESIGN

Model based economic evaluation with data from an individual patient data meta-analysis supplemented with cost and outcome data from published sources taking an NHS (National Health Service) perspective. A state transition (Markov) model was developed, the structure being informed by the reviews of the trials and clinical input. A subgroup analysis, one way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also carried out.

POPULATION

Four hypothetical cohorts of women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

INTERVENTIONS

One of four alternative strategies: Mirena, first or second generation endometrial ablation techniques, or hysterectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Hysterectomy is the preferred strategy for the first intervention for heavy menstrual bleeding. Although hysterectomy is more expensive, it produces more QALYs relative to other remaining strategies and is likely to be considered cost effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with Mirena is £1440 (€1633, $2350) per additional QALY. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with second generation ablation is £970 per additional QALY.

CONCLUSION

In light of the acceptable thresholds used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, hysterectomy would be considered the preferred strategy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. The results concur with those of other studies but are highly sensitive to utility values used in the analysis.