Outcomes following hysterectomy or endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics in Scotland

Time to Hysterectomy After Transcervical Resection of the Endometrium Based on Age: A Retrospective Cohort Review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of hysterectomy over time after transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) based on age.

DESIGN

Retrospective audit.

SETTING

A single gynecology clinic in regional Victoria, Australia.

PATIENTS

A total of 1078 patients who had undergone TCRE for abnormal uterine bleeding.

INTERVENTIONS

The likelihood of hysterectomy was compared across age groups using the chi-square test. Time to hysterectomy was summarized as a median with the 25th and 75th percentiles and compared across age groups using the Kaplan-Meier plot (log-rank test) and Cox proportional hazards regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The overall rate of hysterectomy was 24.2% (261 of 1078, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21.7-26.9). When age was categorized into <40 years, 40 to 44 years, 45 to 49 years, and >50 years, the rate of hysterectomy after TCRE was 32.3% (70 of 217), 29.5% (93 of 315), 19.6% (73 of 372), and 14.4% (25 of 174), respectively (p <.001). The likelihood of hysterectomy at any time point after TCRE among those aged 45 to 49 years and older than 50 years was 43% and 59% lower, respectively, than patients under 40 years (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80, and hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65, respectively). The median time to hysterectomy was 1.68 years (25th to 75th percentiles, 0.77-3.76).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that patients who underwent a TCRE before the age of 45 years had a higher chance of having a hysterectomy than patients older than 45 years. This information will enable clinicians to inform patients of their chance of undergoing a hysterectomy at any time after TCRE.

Endometrial ablation and resection versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications

To evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endometrial ablation or resection (E:A/R) compared to hysterectomy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Literature search was conducted, and randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing (E:A/R) versus hysterectomy were reviewed. The search was last updated in November 2022. Twelve RCTs with 2,028 women (hysterectomy: n=977 vs. [E:A/R]: n=1,051) were included in the analyzis. The meta-analysis revealed that the hysterectomy group showed improved patient-reported and objective bleeding symptoms more than those of the (E:A/R) group, with risk ratios of (mean difference [MD], 0.75; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.71 to 0.79) and (MD, 44.00; 95% CI, 36.09 to 51.91), respectively. Patient satisfaction was higher post-hysterectomy than (E:A/R) at 2 years of follow-up, but this effect was absent with long-term follow-up. (E:A/R) is considered an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical management for heavy menstrual bleeding. Although both procedures are highly effective, safe, and improve the quality of life, hysterectomy is significantly superior at improving bleeding symptoms and patient satisfaction for up to 2 years. However, it is associated with longer operating and recovery times and a higher rate of postoperative complications. The initial cost of (E:A/R) is less than the cost of hysterectomy, but further surgical requirements are common; therefore, there is no difference in the cost for long-term follow-up.

Prevention of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Given the challenges with achieving effective and durable treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, primary prevention is highly desirable. Fortunately, decades of research have provided evidence for several strategies that can be deployed to optimize risk reduction. These include surgery, chemoprevention, and lifestyle factor modifications. These broad categories vary in terms of the magnitude of risk reduction possible, the possible short-term and long-term side effects, the degree of difficulty, and acceptability. Thus, the concept of a risk-based model to personalize preventive interventions is advocated to guide discussion between care providers and women at risk. For women with inherited major gene mutations that greatly increase risk of ovarian cancer, surgical approaches have favorable risk to benefit ratios. Chemoprevention and lifestyle factor modifications portend a lower degree of risk reduction but confer lower risk of undesirable side effects. Since complete prevention is not currently possible, better methods for early detection remain a high priority.

Therapeutic options for the management of abnormal uterine bleeding

Just as the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is approached systematically using the two FIGO systems for AUB in the reproductive years, treatment options can be considered similarly. Therapeutic options fall into two categories-medical and surgical-and while medical management is typically regarded as first-line therapy, there are several exceptions defined by the presenting cause or causes, mainly when infertility is a concurrent issue. In the early 1990s, up to 60% of women underwent a hysterectomy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), but this figure has decreased. The number of women undergoing a hysterectomy for benign disorders continues to decline, along with an increase in hysterectomies performed using minimally invasive techniques. Discussions about therapeutic options are tailored to the individual patient, and we include the risks and benefits of each option, including no management, to enable the patient to make an informed choice. The different types of treatment options and the factors affecting decision-making are considered in this article.

Hysteroscopic Endometrial Ablation: From Indications to Instrumentation and Techniques-A Call to Action

The development of minimally invasive techniques has led to the creation of innovative alternatives in cases where traditional methods are not applicable. In modern gynecology, hysteroscopy has become the gold standard for the evaluation and treatment of intrauterine pathology. Endometrial ablation (EA) is a procedure that uses different types of energy to destroy the endometrium and is currently used as an alternative technique in cases of heavy menstrual bleeding when medical treatment has failed and uterine preservation is desired. The aim of this review was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of hysteroscopic EA as an alternative in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. A detailed computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library), from 1994 to June 2022, to evaluate the outcomes in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) undergoing EA using hysteroscopic and non-hysteroscopic techniques. Only scientific publications in English were included. Twelve articles on the current use of endometrial ablation were included. Data on patient symptoms, tools used for EA, primary outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. EA should be considered an effective and safe approach in the management of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding caused by benign pathology, in whom medical treatment has failed or is contraindicated. Due to the lack of evidence, it would be interesting to determine whether EA would also have a role in the treatment of women with premalignant lesions, avoiding invasive surgical procedures or medical treatment in those patients for whom hysterectomy or the use of hormonal treatment is contraindicated.

Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: A population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive methods to reduce menorrhagia were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. Transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) and endometrial ablation (EA) are two of the most frequently used methods. As none of them can guarantee a complete removal of the endometrium, there are concerns that the remaining endometrium may develop to endometrial cancer (EC) later in life. The primary aim was to analyze the long-term incidence of EC after TCRE and EA in a nationwide population. The secondary aim was to assess the two treatment modalities separately.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Swedish National Patient Registry and National Quality Registry for Gynecological Surgery were used for identification of women who had TCRE or EA performed between 1997-2017. The cohort was followed from the first TCRE or EA until hysterectomy, diagnosis of EC, or death. Follow-up data were retrieved from the National Cancer Registry and the National Death Registry. Expected incidence for EC in Swedish women was calculated using Swedish data retrieved from the NORDCAN project after having taken into account differences of age and follow-up time. Cumulative incidence of EC after TCRE and EA, was calculated. A standardized incidence ratio was calculated based on the expected and observed incidence, stratified by age and year of diagnosis.

RESULTS

In total, 17 296 women (mean age 45.1 years) underwent TCRE (n = 8626) or EA (n = 8670). Excluded were 3121 who had a hysterectomy for benign causes during follow up. During a median follow-up time of 7.1 years (interquartile range 3.1-13.3 years) the numbers of EC were 25 (0.3%) after TCRE and 2 (0.02%) after EA, respectively. The observed incidence was significantly lower than expected (population-based estimate) after EA but not after TCRE, giving a standardized incidence ratio of 0.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.53) after EA and 1.27 (95% CI 0.86-1.88) after TCRE. Median times to EC were 3.0 and 8.3 years after TCRE and EA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant reduction of EC after EA, suggesting a protective effect, whereas endometrial resection showed an incidence within the expected rate.

Re-intervention and patient satisfaction rates following office radiofrequency endometrial ablation: a comparative retrospective study of 408 cases

This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and long-term satisfaction of radiofrequency endometrial ablation outside the context of clinical trials in 408 women, and compared the outcome between office-setting (211, 52%) and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics (197, 48%). The Kaplan Meir time-to-event analysis showed that the cumulative number of women undergoing surgical re-intervention was 32 with a probability of 9.4% (95% CI: 6.3 - 12.5%) at 2-years, and 45 with a probability of 14.5% (95% CI: 10.3 - 18.2%) at 5-years. There was no statistically significant difference in the re-intervention rate between office and day-case groups (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.68 - 3.1, p = .3). The satisfaction rate, measured by Visual Analogue Scale, was not statistically different (p = .5) between office (109; 80.7%) and day-case (96; 82.8%) groups. This study showed lower surgical re-intervention rate than previously reported in observational studies, and high rates of long-term women satisfaction. The outcomes were similar in office and day-case settings.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Previous studies have shown the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency endometrial ablation for treating heavy periods. However, studies investigating it, outside clinical trials, either included a small sample size, a short-term follow-up, poor reporting so that it is impossible to judge whether some women underwent re-intervention in another centre, failed to discriminate in analysis between second-generation techniques, or assessed only short-term satisfaction.What do the results of this study add? This is the largest series reported from a single centre and the first study reporting long-term satisfaction in women, outside clinical trials. Surgical re-intervention was used as the primary outcome measure which is an objective measure rather than the change in the monthly flow which is rather subjective. More importantly, the study records the similarity, in the outcome and women's satisfaction rate, between office and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Endometrial ablation service is widely implemented in office-setting in the UK. We hope the result of this study encourages implementation on a larger scale in office across centres in the world with its multiple advantages both to women and service alike.

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs

BACKGROUND

New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon.

SETTING

UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach.

FUTURE WORK

Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common in otherwise healthy women of reproductive age, and can affect physical health and quality of life. Surgery is usually a second-line treatment of HMB. Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) to remove or ablate the endometrium is less invasive than hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment and can be via open (laparotomy) approach, or via minimally invasive approaches (vaginally or laparoscopically). Each approach has its own advantages and risk profile.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of endometrial resection or ablation versus different routes of hysterectomy (open, minimally invasive hysterectomy, or unspecified route) for the treatment of HMB.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (July 2020), and reference lists, grey literature and trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared techniques of endometrial resection/ablation with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of HMB in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (1966 participants) comparing EA/ER to hysterectomy (open (abdominal), minimally invasive (laparoscopic or vaginal), or unspecified (or at surgeon's discretion) route of hysterectomy). The results were rated as moderate-, low- and very low-certainty evidence. Endometrial resection/ablation versus open hysterectomy We found two trials. Women having EA/ER are probably less likely to perceive an improvement in HMB compared to women having open hysterectomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.95; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably have a 13% risk of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 on the open hysterectomy group; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to similar quality of life at two years (mean difference (MD) -5.30, 95% CI -11.90 to 1.30; 1 study, 155 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and satisfaction rate at one year (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 1 study, 194 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.20; 2 studies, 247 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably reduces time to return to normal activity compared to open hysterectomy (MD -21.00 days, 95% CI -24.78 to -17.22; 1 study, 197 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Endometrial resection/ablation versus minimally invasive hysterectomy We found five trials. The proportion of women with perception of improvement in HMB at two years may be similar between groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 1 study, 79 women; low-certainty evidence). Blood loss may be higher in the EA/ER group when assessed using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life is probably lower in the EA/ER group compared to the minimally invasive hysterectomy group at two years according to the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) (MD -10.71, 95% CI -15.11 to -6.30; 2 studies, 145 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; 1 study, 616 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably increases the risk of further surgery for HMB compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy (RR 7.70, 95% CI 2.54 to 23.32; 4 studies, 922 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and treatments probably have similar rates of any serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59; 4 studies, 809 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with EA/ER are probably less likely to be satisfied with treatment at one year (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 558 women; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data for time to return to work or normal life because of extreme heterogeneity (99%); however, the three studies reporting this all had the same direction of effect favouring EA/ER. Endometrial resection/ablation versus unspecified route of hysterectomy We found three trials. EA/ER may lead to a lower perception of improvement in HMB compared to unspecified route of hysterectomy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; 2 studies, 403 women; low-certainty evidence). Although EA/ER may lead to similar quality of life using the SF-36 General Health Perception at two years' follow-up (MD -1.90, 95% CI -8.67 to 4.87; 1 study, 209 women; low-certainty evidence), the proportion of women with improvement in general health at one year may be lower (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; 1 study, 185 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably has a risk of 5.4% of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 with total hysterectomy; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and reduces the proportion of women with any serious adverse event (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.80; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to a similar satisfaction rate at one year' follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 3 studies, 545 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER may lead to shorter time to return to normal activity (MD -18.90 days, 95% CI -24.63 to -13.17; 1 study, 172 women; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for HMB. Effectiveness varies with EA/ER compared to different hysterectomy approaches. The perception of improvement in HMB with EA/ER is probably lower compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but may be similar compared to minimally invasive. Quality of life with EA/ER is probably similar to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but lower compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. Further surgery for treatment failure is probably more likely with EA/ER compared to all routes of hysterectomy. Satisfaction rates also vary. EA/ER probably has a similar rate of satisfaction compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but a lower rate of satisfaction compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. The proportion having any serious adverse event appears similar in all groups, but specific adverse events did reported difference between EA/ER and different routes. We were unable to draw conclusions about the time to return to normal activity, but the direction of effect suggests it is likely to be shorter with EA/ER.

A study of pregnancy after endometrial ablation using linked population data

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial ablation encapsulates a range of procedures undertaken to destroy the endometrial lining of the uterus as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding in women who no longer wish to bear children. Pregnancy following ablation, while unlikely, can occur and may carry higher rates of complications. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with post-endometrial ablation pregnancy and to describe pregnancy and birth outcomes for post-endometrial ablation pregnancies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This population-based data linkage study included all female residents of New South Wales, Australia, aged 15-50 years with a hospital admission between July 2001 to June 2014 who birthed between July 2001 and June 2015. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate associations between women's characteristics and post-endometrial ablation pregnancy of at least 20 weeks' gestation. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize pregnancy and birth outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 18 559 women with an endometrial ablation, 575 (3.1%) had a post-ablation pregnancy of at least 20 weeks' gestation. Nulliparity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 12.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-16.2), older age (35-39 years: aHR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29-0.51; 40-44 years: aHR 0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.11), marital status (single: aHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.83; widowed/divorced/separated: aHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.94) and a diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding (aHR 0.09, 95% CI 0.07-0.13) were associated with post-ablation pregnancy. There were high rates of cesarean delivery (43%), preterm birth (13%), twin or higher order pregnancies (9%) and stillbirth (13.3/1000 births) among these post-ablation pregnancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nulliparity at the time of endometrial ablation is associated with increased risk of post-ablation pregnancy, highlighting the importance of careful discussion and consideration of treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB.

DESIGN

A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure.

SETTING

Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork.

INTERVENTIONS

LASH compared with second-generation EA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure.

FUTURE WORK

Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness.

TRIAI REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Radiofrequency endometrial ablation with a novel endometrial tip for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding and abnormal uterine bleeding: a prospective study

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a radiofrequency ablation system with a novel endometrial tip (RFA-EMT) for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).Methods: This is a prospective study including a total of 38 premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) that failed to respond to medical therapy. Hysteroscopic evaluation and curettage biopsy were performed just before the procedure. The procedure was timed to occur during the early proliferative phase (cycle days 4-10). RFA-EMT procedures were performed by a single surgeon with the patient under general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway. Primary outcome was reduction in bleeding, reported as amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, and eumenorrhea, which were measured via hemoglobin level and pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC) score. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, dysmenorrhea with numeric rating scale (NRS) score, and endometrial thickening in the early proliferative phase, as assessed by transvaginal ultrasonography.Results: There were no peri- or post-procedural complications. Combined amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, and eumenorrhea rates at 3 and 6 months were 97.4% and 100%, respectively. The hemoglobin level was significantly increased, and the PBAC score, NRS score, and endometrial thickening were significantly decreased after 3 months. These trends were maintained for 6 months after the procedure.Conclusion: RFA-EMT, a new technique, is safe and effective for women with HMB or AUB for which medical therapy has failed.

Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.

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.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus endometrial ablation for women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS

In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893.

FINDINGS

Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54).

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women of reproductive age, causing them physical problems, social disruption and reducing their quality of life. Medical therapy has traditionally been first-line therapy. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Less invasive surgical techniques, such as endometrial resection and ablation, have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted-but were not limited to-the following: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the ongoing trial registries. We made attempts to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 1999, 2007, 2008, 2013 and on 10 December 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial resection or ablation (by any means) with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women. No included trials used third generation techniques.Clinical measures of improved bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates were observed in women who had undergone hysterectomy compared to endometrial ablation. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93; 4 studies, 650 women, I² = 31%; low-quality evidence), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 2 studies, 292 women, I² = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 2 studies, 237 women, I² = 79%). Women in the endometrial ablation group also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart compared to their baseline (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79; 1 study, 68 women; moderate-quality evidence) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 16.17, 95% CI 5.53 to 47.24; 927 women; 7 studies; I² = 0%), at two years (RR 34.06, 95% CI 9.86 to 117.65; 930 women; 6 studies; I² = 0%), at three years (RR 22.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 370.26; 172 women; 1 study) and at four years (RR 36.32, 95% CI 5.09 to 259.21;197 women; 1 study). The satisfaction rate was lower amongst those who had endometrial ablation at two years after surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 4 studies, 567 women, I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of clear difference was reported between post-treatment satisfaction rates in groups at other follow-up times (1 and 4 years).Most adverse events, both major and minor, were more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had an endometrial ablation were less likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.31; participants = 621; studies = 4; I² = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59; 791 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 605 women; 3 studies; I² = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 858 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 202 women; 1 study) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 172 women; 1 study).Recovery time was shorter in the endometrial ablation group, considering hospital stay, time to return to normal activities and time to return to work; we did not, however, pool these data owing to high heterogeneity. Some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), generated a low GRADE score, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection and ablation offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Both procedures are effective, and satisfaction rates are high. Although hysterectomy offers permanent and immediate relief from heavy menstrual bleeding, it is associated with a longer operating time and recovery period. Hysterectomy also has higher rates of postoperative complications such as sepsis, blood transfusion and haematoma (vault and wound). The initial cost of endometrial destruction is lower than that of hysterectomy but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a significant health problem in premenopausal women; it can reduce their quality of life and can cause social disruption and physical problems such as iron deficiency anaemia. First-line treatment has traditionally consisted of medical therapy (hormonal and non-hormonal), but this is not always successful in reducing menstrual bleeding to acceptable levels. Hysterectomy is a definitive treatment, but it is more costly and carries some risk. Endometrial ablation may be an alternative to hysterectomy that preserves the uterus. Many techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. First-generation techniques require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope during the procedure; although it is safe, this procedure requires specific technical skills. Newer techniques for endometrial ablation (second- and third-generation techniques) have been developed that are quicker than previous approaches because they do not require hysteroscopic visualisation during the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of endometrial destruction techniques to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in premenopausal women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo (from inception to May 2018). We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature, and reference lists of retrieved studies, and we made contact with experts in the field and with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture ablation devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different endometrial ablation or resection techniques for women reporting HMB without known uterine pathology, other than fibroids outside the uterine cavity and smaller than 3 centimetres, were eligible. Outcomes included improvement in HMB and in quality of life, patient satisfaction, operative outcomes, complications, and the need for further surgery, including hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for clarification of methods or for additional data. We assessed adverse events only if they were separately measured in the included trials. We undertook comparisons with individual techniques as well as an overall comparison of first- and second-generation ablation methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this update 28 studies (4287 women) with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 372. Most studies had low risk of bias for randomisation, attrition, and selective reporting. Less than half of these studies had adequate allocation concealment, and most were unblinded. Using GRADE, we determined that the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.Overall comparison of second-generation versus first-generation (i.e. gold standard hysteroscopic ablative) techniques revealed no evidence of differences in amenorrhoea at 1 year and 2 to 5 years' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.27; 12 studies; 2145 women; I² = 77%; and RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.72; 672 women; 4 studies; I² = 80%; very low-quality evidence) and showed subjective improvement at 1 year follow-up based on a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) (< 75 or acceptable improvement) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; 5 studies; 1282 women; I² = 0%; and RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 236 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence). Study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction between second- and first-generation techniques at 1 year follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 11 studies; 1750 women; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence) nor at 2 to 5 years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; 672 women; 4 studies; I² = 81%).Compared with first-generation techniques, second-generation endometrial ablation techniques were associated with shorter operating times (mean difference (MD) -13.52 minutes, 95% CI -16.90 to -10.13; 9 studies; 1822 women; low-quality evidence) and more often were performed under local rather than general anaesthesia (RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.4; 6 studies; 1434 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether perforation rates differed between second- and first-generation techniques (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.01; 1885 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%).Trials reported little or no difference between second- and first-generation techniques in requirement for additional surgery (ablation or hysterectomy) at 1 year follow-up (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.26; 6 studies: 935 women; low-quality evidence). At 5 years, results showed probably little or no difference between groups in the requirement for hysterectomy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22; 4 studies; 758 women; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Approaches to endometrial ablation have evolved from first-generation techniques to newer second- and third-generation approaches. Current evidence suggests that compared to first-generation techniques (endometrial laser ablation, transcervical resection of the endometrium, rollerball endometrial ablation), second-generation approaches (thermal balloon endometrial ablation, microwave endometrial ablation, hydrothermal ablation, bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation, endometrial cryotherapy) are of equivalent efficacy for heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable rates of amenorrhoea and improvement on the PBAC. Second-generation techniques are associated with shorter operating times and are performed more often under local rather than general anaesthesia. It is uncertain whether perforation rates differed between second- and first-generation techniques. Evidence was insufficient to show which second-generation approaches were superior to others and to reveal the efficacy and safety of third-generation approaches versus first- and second-generation techniques.

Surgical prevention strategies in ovarian cancer

Given the current lack of effective screening for ovarian cancer, surgical removal of at-risk tissue is the most successful strategy to decrease risk of cancer development. However, the optimal timing of surgery and tissues to remove, as well as the appropriate patients to undergo preventive procedures are poorly understood. In this review, we first discuss the origin and precursors of ovarian epithelial carcinomas, focusing on high-grade serous carcinomas and endometriosis-associated carcinomas, which cause the majority of the mortality and incidence of ovarian cancer. In addition, we summarize the implications of current understanding of specific pathogenic origins for surgical prevention and remaining gaps in knowledge. Secondly, we review evidence from the epidemiologic literature on the associations of various surgical prevention strategies, including endometriosis excision, tubal procedures, and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, with risk of future ovarian cancer development, as well as the short- and long-term consequences of these strategies on women's health and quality and life. We conclude with recommendations for surgical prevention in women with high-risk genetic mutations and average-risk women, and a brief discussion of ongoing research that will help clarify optimal surgical approaches that balance risk-reduction with maintenance of women's quality of life.

Economic Evaluation of Global Endometrial Ablation Versus Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Every year, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) exacts a heavy toll on women's health and leads to high costs for the US health care system. The literature shows that endometrial ablation results in fewer complications, shorter recovery and lower costs than more commonly performed hysterectomy procedures. The objective of this study was to model clinical-economic outcomes, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness of global endometrial ablation (GEA) versus outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH) procedures. A decision tree, state-transition (semi-Markov) economic model was developed to simulate 3 hypothetical cohorts of women who received surgical treatment for AUB (GEA, OPH, and IPH) over 1, 2, and 3 years to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for GEA vs. OPH and GEA vs. IPH. Two versions of the model were created to reflect both commercial health care payer and US Medicaid perspectives, and analyses were conducted for both payer types. Total health care costs in the first year after GEA were substantially lower compared with those for IPH and OPH. Budget impact analysis results showed that increasing GEA utilization yields total annual cost savings of about $906,000 for a million-member commercial health plan and about $152,000 in cost savings for a typical-sized state Medicaid plan with 1.4 million members. Cost-effectiveness analysis results for both perspectives showed GEA as economically dominant (conferring greater benefit at lower cost) over both OPH and IPH in the 1-year commercial scenario. This study demonstrates that, for some patients, GEA may prove to be a safe, uterus-sparing, cost-effective alternative to OPH and IPH for the surgical treatment of AUB.

HEALTH: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus second-generation endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus.

While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a ‘supracervical’ hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn.

HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question ‘Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?’

Methods/Design

Women aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points.

Discussion

Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893. Registered on 28 January 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-017-2374-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse

Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (PHVP) is a recognised although rare complication following both abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy and the risk is increased in women following vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse. The management of PHVP remains challenging and whilst many women will initially benefit from conservative measures, the majority will ultimately require surgery. The purpose of this paper is to review the prevalence and risk factors associated with PHVP as well to give an overview of the clinical management of this often complicated problem. The role of prophylactic primary prevention procedures at the time of hysterectomy will be discussed as well as initial conservative management. Surgery, however, remains integral in managing these complex patients and the vaginal and abdominal approach to managing PHVP will be reviewed in detail, in addition to both laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

Long-term incidence of hysterectomy following endometrial resection or endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence of hysterectomy following endometrial resection or endometrial ablation (ERA).

METHODS

The present retrospective study enrolled women who underwent ERA for benign heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, UK, between February 1, 1990, and December 31, 1997; follow-up data to the end of 2015 were included from the pathology laboratory report system from the single pathology laboratory in the region. Data were compared between patients who did or did not require a hysterectomy after ERA.

RESULTS

There were 901 patients who underwent ERA for HMB during the study period. The mean age of patients was 42.3 ± 5.7 years; of the patients included, 206 (22.9%) women underwent hysterectomy and these patients had a mean age of 40.1 years. Of the patients who had hysterectomies, 155 (75.2%) did so in the first 5 years following ERA, 31 (15.0%) did within 6-10 years, 11 (5.3%) did within 11-15 years, and 9 (4.4%) did within 16-20 years. In total, 51 (24.8%) of these patients had hysterectomies within 6-25 years of ERA.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant majority of women who underwent ERA for HMB did not require hysterectomy up to 25 years after the procedure.

Salpingo-oophorectomy at the Time of Benign Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term risks associated with salpingo-oophorectomy with ovarian conservation at the time of benign hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 30, 2015. We included prospective and retrospective comparative studies of women with benign hysterectomy who had either bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) or conservation of one or both ovaries.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers double-screened 5,568 citations and extracted eligible studies into customized forms. Twenty-six comparative studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for results, quality, and strength of evidence.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Studies were extracted for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data. When compared with hysterectomy with BSO, prevalence of reoperation and ovarian cancer was higher in women with ovarian conservation (ovarian cancer risk of 0.14-0.7% compared with 0.02-0.04% among those with BSO). Hysterectomy with BSO was associated with a lower incidence of breast and total cancer, but no difference in the incidence of cancer mortality was found when compared with ovarian conservation. All-cause mortality was higher in women younger than age 45 years at the time of BSO who were not treated with estrogen replacement therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.92). Coronary heart disease (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) and cardiovascular death were higher among women with BSO (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.27-2.68), especially women younger than 45 years who were not treated with estrogen. Finally, there was an increase in the prevalence of dementia and Parkinson disease among women with BSO compared with conservation, especially in women younger than age 50 years. Clinical practice guidelines were devised based on these results.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy offers the advantage of effectively eliminating the risk of ovarian cancer and reoperation but can be detrimental to other aspects of health, especially among women younger than age 45 years.

Patient-reported lower urinary tract symptoms after hysterectomy or hysteroscopy: a study from the Swedish Quality Register for Gynecological Surgery

Introduction and hypothesis

Hysterectomy is sometimes considered the cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). We hypothesized that hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding and/or symptoms of fibroids is more likely to cause LUTS than a hysteroscopic procedure for the same indications.

Methods

Two groups of women were compared: one group comprised 3,618 women who had had a hysterectomy due to abnormal uterine bleeding or symptoms of fibroids and the other group comprised 238 women who had had hysteroscopic treatment for the same indications. The main outcome measures were occurrence of LUTS before and 1 year after the surgical intervention. The frequencies of LUTS before and after surgery were compared between the groups. Binary logistic regression was used to model the odds of having postoperative urinary leakage and urgency while controlling for uterine size, surgical procedure and preoperative LUTS.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between women after hysterectomy and after hysteroscopy in the frequencies of LUTS before or after surgery, when uterine size was comparable. However, there was a difference in the rates of de novo urinary incontinence between women with hysterectomy and women with hysteroscopy (7.6%, 95% CI 6.3–9.0, and 3.2%, 95% CI 1.6–6.5, respectively). Of the women with a large uterus, 58.6% (95% CI 51.5–65.5) reported relief of urinary incontinence and 85.5% (95% CI 82.3–88.4) reported relief of urinary urgency postoperatively.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that it is important to individualize preoperative information in women prior to hysterectomy since the outcome concerning LUTS depends on preoperative symptoms and uterine size.

Endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

Endometrial ablation can be described as one of the great gynecological success stories. It has changed the management of heavy menstrual bleeding dramatically. The development of newer (second generation) endometrial ablative techniques has enabled clinicians to set up comprehensive 'one stop clinics' based on an outpatient service to treat heavy menstrual bleeding effectively without the need for general anesthetic or conscious sedation. This article describes the rationale and evidence for use of different endometrial auto-ablative systems along with relevant technical and clinical aspects. It also addresses the essentials of a successful approach to outpatient endometrial ablation along with discussion on risks, complications and contraindications of the procedure.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Identifying complications of interventional procedures from UK routine healthcare databases: a systematic search for methods using clinical codes

BACKGROUND

Several authors have developed and applied methods to routine data sets to identify the nature and rate of complications following interventional procedures. But, to date, there has been no systematic search for such methods. The objective of this article was to find, classify and appraise published methods, based on analysis of clinical codes, which used routine healthcare databases in a United Kingdom setting to identify complications resulting from interventional procedures.

METHODS

A literature search strategy was developed to identify published studies that referred, in the title or abstract, to the name or acronym of a known routine healthcare database and to complications from procedures or devices. The following data sources were searched in February and March 2013: Cochrane Methods Register, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Health Technology Assessment database, MathSciNet, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, OAIster, OpenGrey, Science Citation Index Expanded and ScienceDirect. Of the eligible papers, those which reported methods using clinical coding were classified and summarised in tabular form using the following headings: routine healthcare database; medical speciality; method for identifying complications; length of follow-up; method of recording comorbidity. The benefits and limitations of each approach were assessed.

RESULTS

From 3688 papers identified from the literature search, 44 reported the use of clinical codes to identify complications, from which four distinct methods were identified: 1) searching the index admission for specified clinical codes, 2) searching a sequence of admissions for specified clinical codes, 3) searching for specified clinical codes for complications from procedures and devices within the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) coding scheme which is the methodology recommended by NHS Classification Service, and 4) conducting manual clinical review of diagnostic and procedure codes.

CONCLUSIONS

The four distinct methods identifying complication from codified data offer great potential in generating new evidence on the quality and safety of new procedures using routine data. However the most robust method, using the methodology recommended by the NHS Classification Service, was the least frequently used, highlighting that much valuable observational data is being ignored.

Treatment of uterine myomas by radiofrequency thermal ablation: a 10-year retrospective cohort study

Patients' selection criteria, effectiveness, and safety of radiofrequency thermal ablation (RFTA) therapy for uterine myomas (UM) were assessed using a 10-year retrospective cohort study. From July 2001 to July 2011, a total of 1216 patients treated for UM were divided into 2 groups. Group A consisted of 476 premenopause patients, average age 36.5 ± 8.5 years, average number of myomas 1.7 ± 0.9, and average diameter of myomas 4.5 ± 1.5 cm, and group B consisted of 740 menopause patients, average age 48.5 ± 3.5 years, average number of myomas 2.6 ± 1.3, and average diameter of myomas 5.0 ± 2.5 cm. Average follow-up period was 36.5 ± 11.5 months. At 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after RFTA, average diameters of myomas in group A were 3.8, 3.0, 2.7, 2.4, and 2.2 cm, respectively, and 47.7% (227 of 476) of patients had tumor trace at 12 months after RFTA. In group B, the results were 4.7, 3.7, 3.3, 2.3, and 2.3 cm, respectively, and 58.8% (435 of 740) of patients had tumor trace at 12 months after RFTA. Three months after treatment, myoma volumes were significantly reduced in both the groups (P < .01), and group B had higher rate of tumor trace at 12 months after RFTA than group A (P < .05). Clinical symptoms and health-related quality-of-life outcome (HRQL) were significantly improved after RFTA in both groups and the postoperative recurrence rate of UM was significantly higher in group A at 10.7% (51 of 476) than group B at 2.4% (18 of 740; P < .05). Radiofrequency thermal ablation is an excellent minimally invasive treatment for UM smaller than 5.0 cm in diameter.

Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation vs medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether endometrial ablation is associated with increased risk or delayed diagnosis of endometrial cancer compared with medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding.

DESIGN

Multi-centered retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

The study was performed using data from The Health Improvement Network, a representative population-based cohort of patients in 495 outpatient general practitioner practices in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS

Women aged >25 years with abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosed between June 1994 and September 2010.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial ablation, medical management, or both.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 234 721 women met study inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4776 of whom underwent endometrial ablation and the remaining 229 945 received medical management. Cox models compared endometrial cancer rates between ablation and medical management groups using hazard ratios. To investigate a possible diagnostic delay, the median time from bleeding diagnosis to endometrial cancer diagnosis in women in whom endometrial cancer developed was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. All statistical tests were 2-tailed, with α = .05. During a median observation period of 4.07 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.88-7.17), endometrial cancer developed in 3 women in the ablation group and 601 women in the medical management group (ablation hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-1.40; p = .17). Median time to diagnosis was 237 in the ablation group, and 299 days in the medical management group (ablation IQR, 155-1350; medical management IQR, 144-1133.5; p = .99). Adjusted and sensitivity analyses did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was observed in endometrial cancer rates, and there was no delay in diagnosis when comparing endometrial ablation vs medical management. Further studies are needed to investigate the effect of previous ablation exposure on histology or cancer stage at manifestation of endometrial cancer.

Microwave endometrial ablation versus thermal balloon endometrial ablation (MEATBall): 5-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes following microwave endometrial ablation (MEA™) and thermal balloon ablation (TBall).

DESIGN

Follow up of a prospective, double-blind randomised controlled trial at 5 years.

SETTING

A teaching hospital in the UK.

POPULATION

A total of 320 women eligible for and requesting endometrial ablation.

METHODS

Eligible women were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo MEA or Tball. Postal questionnaires were sent to participants at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively to determine satisfaction with outcome, menstrual status, bleeding scores and quality of life measurement. Subsequent surgery was ascertained from the women and the hospital operative database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was overall satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of menstrual loss, change in quality of life scores and subsequent surgery.

RESULTS

Of the women originally randomised 217/314 (69.1%) returned questionnaires. Nonresponders were assumed to be treatment failures for data analysis. The primary outcome of satisfaction was similar in both groups (58% for MEA™ versus 53% for TBall, difference 5%; 95% CI -6 to 16%). Amenorrhoea rates were high following both techniques (51% versus 45%, difference 6%; 95% CI -5 to 17%). There was no significant difference in the hysterectomy rates between the two arms (9% versus 7%, difference 2%; 95% CI -5 to 9%).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years post-treatment there were no significant clinical differences in patient satisfaction, menstrual status, quality of life scores or hysterectomy rates between MEA™ and Thermachoice 3, thermal balloon ablation.

The long-term outcomes of endometrial ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Long-term data from the studies of various endometrial ablation techniques are beginning to emerge. This review appraises the current literature on endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding, with particular emphasis on second-generation techniques, and their effectiveness, rates of repeat and further interventions and adverse events occurring 1 year or more after the procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Second-generation, nonhysteroscopic techniques are marginally superior to hysteroscopic approaches, in terms of amenorrhoea, refractory menorrhagia and satisfaction rates. Hysterectomy rates are around 20% at 2 years, with a further 3-5% having repeat ablations. Bipolar radiofrequency and microwave ablation give rise to higher amenorrhoea rates than thermal balloon ablation, and are less likely to require repeat or further intervention.

SUMMARY

Endometrial ablation is a well tolerated and effective procedure for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Second-generation techniques provide greater benefit than hysteroscopic techniques, with shorter procedural times and the possibility of outpatient treatment. Chronic pelvic pain frequently resolves after ablation, but can also develop de novo. Pregnancy outcomes are poor and continuing contraception is recommended.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), which includes both menorrhagia and metrorrhagia, is an important cause of ill health in women. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Several less invasive surgical techniques (e.g. transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE), laser approaches) and various methods of endometrial ablation have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted but were not limited to the following: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Attempts were made to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 2007, 2008 and 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included in the review were any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial destruction by any means with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data. Outcomes analysed included improvement in menstrual blood loss, satisfaction, change in quality of life, duration of surgery and hospital stay, time to return to work, adverse events and requirements for repeat surgery due to failure of the initial surgical treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review were identified. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women.An advantage in favour of hysterectomy compared with endometrial ablation was observed in various measures of improvement in bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (RR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93, four studies, 650 women, I(2) = 31%), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, two studies, 292 women, I(2) = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, two studies, 237 women, I(2) = 79%). The same group of women also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79, one study, 68 women) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91, one study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 14.9, 95% CI 5.2 to 42.6, six studies, 887 women, I(2) = 0%), at two years (RR 23.4, 95% CI 8.3 to 65.8, six studies, 930 women, I(2) = 0%), at three years (RR 11.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 80.1, one study, 172 women) and at four years (RR 36.4, 95% CI 5.1 to 259.2, one study, 197 women). Most adverse events, both major and minor, were significantly more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had a hysterectomy were more likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3, four studies, 621 women, I(2) = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6, four studies, 751 women, I(2) = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4, three studies, 605 women, I(2) = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.3, five studies, 858 women, I(2) = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.5, one study, 202 women) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, one study, 172 women).For some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), a low GRADE score was generated, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection and ablation offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Both procedures are effective, and satisfaction rates are high. Although hysterectomy is associated with longer operating time (particularly for the laparoscopic route), a longer recovery period and higher rates of postoperative complications, it offers permanent relief from heavy menstrual bleeding. The initial cost of endometrial destruction is significantly lower than that of hysterectomy, but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

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.

Does previous pelvic surgery hasten the onset of clinically bothersome urodynamic stress incontinence?

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of previous pelvic surgery on the onset of clinically bothersome urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-cohort study at a District General Hospital of 305 women undergoing surgery for urodynamic stress incontinence: case note and computer records review of patients undergoing USI surgery. The main outcome measures were age at index USI surgery, and duration from previous pelvic surgery to index surgery.

RESULTS

305 women were included, of whom 118 had previous pelvic surgery including abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) (n=74), vaginal hysterectomy (n=23), anterior colporrhaphy (n=27) and posterior colporrhaphy (n=25). The mean age in the previous surgery group was 62.4 years (95% CI 60.2-64.6, range 32-87) and 53.2 years in the no previous surgery group (95% CI 51.4-55, range 30-88). There were no differences in the mean BMI (28.4 vs. 27.5), or mean parity (2.4 vs. 2.5). The median duration from previous surgery to the index USI surgery was 222 months (abdominal hysterectomy), 96 months (vaginal hysterectomy), 78 months (anterior colporrhaphy), and 72 months (posterior colporrhaphy).

CONCLUSION

Previous pelvic surgery does not seem to accelerate the onset of USI, as women without previous pelvic surgery presented at a significantly earlier age (53.2 years) with clinically bothersome USI than those who had previous surgery (62.4 years). Posterior colporrhaphy had the shortest interval to index USI surgery amongst previous operations.

Levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) versus endometrial ablation (Novasure) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities.

METHOD/DESIGN

A multicenter randomised controlled trial, organised in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate.

DISCUSSON

This study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch trial register, number NTR2984.

Rates of subsequent surgery following endometrial ablation among English women with menorrhagia: population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of further surgery amongst women who had an initial endometrial ablation (EA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study using a national administrative database.

SETTING

Population-based study of hospital care in the English National Health Service.

POPULATION

A cohort of 114,910 women who had EA for HMB between January 2000 and December 2011.

METHODS

Multiple Cox regressions were performed to identify the risks of a further procedure, adjusted for age, social deprivation, year and type of initial EA, and presence of fibroids/polyps.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to repeat EA or hysterectomy after initial surgery.

RESULTS

Of 114,910 women undergoing EA, 16.7% had at least one subsequent procedure within 5 years. Higher rates of subsequent surgery were associated with younger age at initial EA, with women aged under 35 years having an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.83 (95% CI 2.67-2.99), compared with women aged over 45 years. Women who had radiofrequency ablation were less likely to have subsequent surgery as compared with first-generation techniques (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.76). The rate of a subsequent hysterectomy within 5 years was 13.5%. Younger women (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.69) and those who had balloon, microwave, or radiofrequency ablation were less likely to have a second EA procedure, rather than a hysterectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

One in six women have further surgery after EA for HMB, which is a higher rate than reported in clinical trials. This risk of further surgery decreases with age.

Five-year follow-up of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The study was conducted to compare 5-year follow-up of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or thermal balloon ablation (TBA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing LNG-IUS (n=30) and TBA (n=28) was performed. Hysterectomy rates, hemoglobin level, bleeding pattern, well-being status and satisfaction rates were assessed. Comparisons between groups were performed by χ(2) test and by unpaired and paired t tests.

RESULTS

After 5 years of follow-up, women treated with a TBA had higher rates of hysterectomy (24%) compared to the LNG-IUS group (3.7%) due to treatment failure (p=.039). Use of LNG-IUS resulted in higher mean hemoglobin (±SD) levels in comparison to the TBA group (14.1±0.3 vs 12.7±0.4 g/dL, p=.009). Menstrual blood loss was significantly higher in the TBA when compared to the LNG-IUS group (45.5% vs 0.0% p<.001). The psychological general well-being index scores were similar. Patient acceptability, perceived clinical improvement and overall satisfaction rates were significantly higher in women using LNG-IUS.

CONCLUSION

Five-year follow-up of HMB treatment with LNG-IUS was associated with higher efficacy and satisfaction ratings compared to TBA.