A 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs bipolar radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding has a substantial impact on professional, physical, and social functioning. In 2021, results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation as treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding were published. Both treatment strategies were equally effective in treating heavy menstrual bleeding during 2-year follow-up. However, long-term results are also relevant for both patients and healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess long-term differences in reintervention risk and menstrual blood loss in women with the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding treated according to a strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a long-term follow-up study of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (MIRA trial), in which women were allocated to either a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (n=132) or radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (n=138). Women from the original trial were contacted to fill out 6 questionnaires. The primary outcome was the reintervention rate after allocated treatment. Secondary outcomes included surgical reintervention rate, menstrual bleeding measured by the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, (disease-specific) quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

From the 270 women who were randomized in the original trial, 196 (52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group: n=94; radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group: n=102) participated in this long-term follow-up study. Mean follow-up duration was 7.4 years (range, 6-9 years). The cumulative reintervention rate (including both medical and surgical reinterventions) was 40.0% (34/85) in the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 28.7% (27/94) in the radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group (relative risk, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.10). The cumulative rate of surgical reinterventions only was significantly higher among patients with a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared with radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (35.3% [30/85] vs 19.1% [18/94]; relative risk, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.10). However, the hysterectomy rate was similar (11.8% [10/94] in the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 18.1% [17/102] in the radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group; relative risk, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.34). Most reinterventions occurred during the first 24 months of follow-up. A total of 171 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores showed a median bleeding score of 0.0. No clinically relevant differences were found regarding quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The overall risk of reintervention after long-term follow-up was not different between women treated according to a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and those treated using a strategy starting with radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation. However, women allocated to a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had a higher risk of surgical reintervention, which was driven by an increase in subsequent endometrial ablation. Both treatment strategies were effective in lowering menstrual blood loss over the long term. The results of this long-term follow-up study can support physicians in optimizing the counseling of women with heavy menstrual bleeding, thus promoting informed decision-making regarding choice of treatment.

Hysteroscopic diode laser myolysis: from a case series to literature review of incisionless myolysis techniques for managing heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women

PURPOSE

This case series examined the safety and effectiveness of hysteroscopic myolysis using laser-induced interstitial thermo-therapy (LITT) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in premenopausal women with FIGO type 1 or 2 uterine fibroids, not planning for future fertility. Additionally, a comprehensive review of innovative, minimally invasive, incisionless myolysis techniques was conducted.

METHODS

Women with HMB, sonographically diagnosed with a single FIGO type 1 or 2 fibroid, underwent hysteroscopic myolysis using the Leonardo® diode laser. Effectiveness was assessed via transvaginal ultrasound measurement of myoma size, volume and vascularization pre and post-procedure. Moreover, we also evaluated any improvements in symptoms using the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC score) scores.

RESULTS

The procedure resulted in significant HMB reductions and noticeable fibroid size, volume, and vascularization decrease in all three patients, with no reported complications. The literature review revealed both advantages and limitations of the minimally invasive, incisionless myolysis techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hysteroscopic laser myolysis is a safe and effective therapeutic intervention for patients experiencing HMB, diagnosed with FIGO type 1 or 2 fibroids, and not planning for future fertility. The procedure resulted in significant reductions in menstrual blood loss and fibroid size. Despite the promising results, it is essential to note the limitations of this report, including its case series design, a small number of patients, and a short follow-up period. Further research is necessary to confirm these results.

Adenomyosis in women undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding associated with uterine leiomyomas

BACKGROUND

Uterine leiomyomas and adenomyosis are both common and often associated with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), including the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Understanding the prevalence of adenomyosis in women with uterine leiomyomas could inform clinicians and patients in a way that may improve therapeutic approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the prevalence of adenomyosis in a group of women who underwent hysterectomy for AUB-L, to determine the prevalence of submucous leiomyomas, and to examine the utility of preoperative ultrasound to detect the presence of adenomyosis.

METHODS

The Kaiser Permanente Hysterectomy Database (KPHD) was searched for women aged 18-52 undergoing hysterectomy for leiomyoma-associated chronic AUB (AUB-L) in 2018 and 2019. A target sample of 400 comprised those with at least 3 years in the Health System. Radiologists evaluated preoperative pelvic ultrasound images to determine leiomyoma size and level 2 FIGO type (submucous or other), and the linked electronic medical record abstracted for clinical features, including histopathological evidence of adenomyosis.

RESULTS

Of the 370 subjects that met the study criteria, adenomyosis was identified via histopathology in 170 (45.9%). There was no difference in the adenomyosis prevalence with (47.1%) and without (43.0%) at least one submucous leiomyoma. Subgroup analysis of ultrasound images by an expert radiologist for the presence of adenomyosis demonstrated a positive predictive value of 54.0% and a negative predictive value of 43.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adenomyosis was present in almost half of this AUB-L cohort undergoing hysterectomy and was equally prevalent in those with and without submucous leiomyomas as determined by sonographic evaluation. The imaging findings are in accord with prior investigators and demonstrate that 2-D ultrasound is insensitive to the presence of adenomyosis when the uterus is affected by leiomyomas. Further research is necessary to determine the impact of various adenomyosis phenotypes on the presence and severity of the symptom of HMB.

Evaluation of Radiofrequency Endometrial Ablation: A 17-year Canadian Experience

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to better elucidate radiofrequency endometrial ablation (REA) durability by assessing the probability of failure as defined by need for postablation hysterectomy. Age at index REA, duration from REA until hysterectomy, and REA failure (REAF) risk factors were analyzed.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patient data between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2019. REAF cases were identified using operative procedure codes. Cox proportional hazard regression assessed the effect of age at index REA on time to postablation hysterectomy. Kaplan-Meier survival curve evaluated timing of postablation hysterectomy, stratified by age at index REA.

SETTING

This study was conducted at Regina General Hospital in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

PATIENTS

Patient population included those who were 21 years of age or older, were premenopausal, and had a history of heavy menstrual bleeding at the time of REA.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention under investigation was REA.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The overall probability of postablation hysterectomy was 22.6%. The probabilities of postablation hysterectomy were 36.1% for women younger than 30 years (n = 128), 28% for women 30 to 34.9 years old (n = 528), 29.6% for women 35 to 39.9 years old (n = 1152), and 17.6% for women 40 years and older (n = 2221). Characteristics associated with REAF included tubal occlusion, cesarean section, dysmenorrhea, and chronic pelvic pain (p <.01) among women younger than 40 years. Leiomyomas accounted for higher failure rates in women 40 years and older (p <.01).

CONCLUSION

Postablation hysterectomy is more likely to occur in women younger than 40 years. REA can be considered in women aged 30 to 39.9 years old, who have no known REAF risk factors. Women younger than 40 years with REAF risk factors will experience higher rates of hysterectomy. Thus, the decision to proceed with REA should be individualized with careful consideration for the underlying causes of abnormal uterine bleeding, while respecting patient autonomy.

The ISTH-BAT score and outcomes after endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding assessment tool (ISTH-BAT), is used during the diagnostic workup of bleeding disorders. Data on ISTH-BAT scores in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) undergoing endometrial ablation (EA) could be essential in optimizing HMB counselling.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the postsurgical incidence of amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, quality of life, re-intervention after EA, and ISTH-BAT score.

METHODS

This study included women who have undergone EA because of HMB. During a follow-up of 2 to 5 years, ISTH-BAT, pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC), and Short Form-36 survey (SF-36) were administered. At 10 years of follow-up surgical re-interventions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-one women were included of whom 77% (n = 55) had an ISTH-BAT score < 6, versus 23% (n = 16) ISTH-BAT score ≥6 (mean age 46.3 versus 42.3, p = 0.004). In the ISTH-BAT ≥6 group versus < 6 group, amenorrhea occurred in 63% (10/16) versus 82% (45/55) (p = 0.111), dysmenorrhea in 38% (6/16) versus 18% (10/55) (p = 0.111), and surgical re-intervention in 19% (3/16) versus 25% (14/55) (p = 0.582). SF-36 item (Bodily) pain was lower in the ISTH-BAT ≥6 group versus < 6 (median score 58.7 vs. 80.0, p = 0.104).

CONCLUSIONS

An ISTH-BAT score ≥6 may be related to a lower amenorrhea incidence and higher dysmenorrhea rate after EA.

Rates of medical or surgical treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: the ECLIPSE trial 10-year observational follow-up study

Background

Heavy menstrual bleeding is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives until menopause. There is a lack of evidence on longer-term outcomes after seeking health care and treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Objectives

To assess the continuation rates of medical treatments and the rates of ablative and surgical interventions among women who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial (ISRCTN86566246) 10 years after initial management for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care. To explore experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding and influences on treatment for women.

Design

This was a prospective observational cohort study, with a parallel qualitative study.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

A total of 206 women with heavy menstrual bleeding who had participated in the ECLIPSE trial consented to providing outcome data via a questionnaire approximately 10 years after original randomisation. Their mean age at follow-up was 54 years (standard deviation 5 years). A purposeful sample of 36 women also participated in semistructured qualitative interviews.

Interventions

The ECLIPSE trial randomised participants to either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (52 mg) or the usual medical treatment (oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone, chosen as clinically appropriate by general practitioners and women). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were rates of ablative and surgical treatments; the rate of continuation of medical treatments; and quality of life using the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and EuroQol-5 Dimensions; women's experiences of heavy menstrual bleeding; and the influences on their decisions around treatment.

Results

Over the 10-year follow-up period, 60 out of 206 (29%) women had received a surgical intervention [hysterectomy, n = 34 (17%); endometrial ablation, n = 26 (13%)]. Between 5 and 10 years post trial intervention, 89 women (43%) had ceased all medical treatments and 88 (43%) were using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system alone or in combination with other oral treatments. More women in the usual medical treatment group had also used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system than women in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group. Fifty-six women (28%) used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at 10 years. There was no statistically significant difference in generic quality-of-life scores between the two original trial groups, although small improvements in the majority of domains were seen in both groups across time. Women reported wide-ranging impacts on their quality of life and normalisation of their heavy menstrual bleeding experience as a result of the taboo around menstruation. Women's treatment decisions and experiences were influenced by the perceived quality of health-care interactions with clinicians and their climacteric status.

Limitations

Fewer than half of the original 571 participants participated; however, the cohort was clinically and demographically representative of the original trial population.

Conclusions

Medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding can be initiated in primary care, with low rates of surgical intervention and improvement in quality of life observed 10 years later. Clinicians should be aware of the considerable challenges that women with heavy menstrual bleeding experience at presentation and subsequently over time, and the importance and value to women of patient-centred communication in this context.

Future work

Any further evaluation of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding should include long-term evaluation of outcomes and adherence.

Trial registration

The original ECLIPSE trial was registered as ISRCTN86566246.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Outcome of uterine functional structures protection by fertility preservative PUSH surgery in diffuse adenomyosis

This study reports the outcomes of an innovative fertility-preserving surgery for the treatment of diffuse adenomyosis that is known as a surgery for protection of uterine structure for healing (PUSH Surgery). Developed at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, PUSH Surgery aims to achieve radical excision of adenomyotic lesions by reconstructing the uterus with overlapping muscle flaps to promote optimal healing of the uterine wall and reduce the risk of scar rupture in subsequent pregnancies. PUSH Surgery was performed on 146 patients with diffuse adenomyosis, with uteri measuring from 8 to 16 gestational weeks and an average volume of 230 ± 150cm³. Regular follow-up was conducted for up to 156 months, revealing a significant reduction in VAS pain scores from 9.4 ± 1.2 before the surgery to 0.3 ± 0.8 and 0.6 ± 1.0 at 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively, with a continuous alleviation rate of 96.4% after the operations. Notably, 100% of patients with severe menorrhagia reported normal menstruation volumes within 2 years. Additionally, 31 patients attempted to conceive, resulting in a 58% postoperative pregnancy rate and a 60.0% intrauterine live embryo rate. Operation-related complications occurred in 2.7% of patients, with a 3.6% recurrence rate after more than 2 years of follow-up. Importantly, no cases of uterine rupture or severe complications were observed in the pregnant patients. In conclusion, PUSH Surgery offers a promising approach for the radical excision of adenomyotic lesions, promoting improved tissue healing and significant symptom relief.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

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

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020156281.

Quality of Life, Anxiety and Depression in Women Treated with Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection or Ablation for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives: Hysteroscopic endometrial resection (ER) or global endometrial ablation (GEA) are feasible methods to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess patient's quality of life (QoL) in women treated with ER/GEA compared to hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches in MEDLINE Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PROSPERO and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted from their inception to July 2022. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of premenopausal women with HMB randomized to conservative surgical treatment (ER/GEA) or hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the evaluation of QoL using the SF-36 score. Results: Twelve RCTs (2773 women) were included in the analysis. Women treated with hysteroscopic ER/GEA showed significantly lower scores for the SF-36 general health perception (mean difference (MD) -8.56 [95% CI -11.75 to -5.36]; I2 = 0%), social function (MD -12.90 [95% CI -23.90 to -1.68]; I2 = 91%), emotional role limitation (MD -4.64 [95% CI -8.43 to -0.85]; I2 = 0%) and vitality (MD -8.01 [95% CI -14.73 to -1.30]; I2 = 74%) domains relative to hysterectomy. Anxiety, depression scores and complication rates were similar between treatments. Relative to uterine balloon therapy, amenorrhea was more common with EA/GER (relative risk 1.51 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.20] I2 = 28%), but posttreatment satisfaction was similar. Conclusions: Women's perception of QoL might be seen to be less improved after hysteroscopic ER/GEA rather than hysterectomy. However, such findings need to be confirmed by additional trials due to the high number of outdated studies and recent improvements in hysteroscopic instrumentation and techniques.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.

METHODS

We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

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.

Pathological findings in the endometrium after microwave endometrial ablation

The acceptance of MEA in Japan is well demand due to its outstanding effectiveness and safety. Infrequently, a repeat MEA or hysterectomy is needed for recurrent menorrhagia in case of failure ablation. The reasons of recurrent menorrhagia subsequent MEA treatment are unclear. The objective of current study is to identify the possible causes of menorrhagia repetition following MEA, together with the observation of histological changes in the endometrium due to this treatment compared with normal cycling endometrial tissue. A total of 170 patients, 8 (4.7%) of them carried out hysterectomy after 16.8 months (range, 2-29 months) of MEA treatment. Normal (n = 47) and MEA (n = 8) treated paraffin embedded endometrial tissue were prepared for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunostaining study to recognize the histological changes in the endometrium as a result of MEA treatment. The histological features observed increased tubal metaplasia (TM) including negative expression of the estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) in the endometrium subsequent MEA treatment. Increased TM together with the absence of ER and PR expression might be a reasonable explanation for repetition menorrhagia in cases of failure ablation. Further study is required to clarify the molecular mechanisms of tubal metaplasia and the expression loss of hormone receptor in the endometrium as a result of MEA treatment. Current studies propose that low dose estrogen-progestin may not be effective with recurrent menorrhagia patient's due to the inadequacy of hormone receptor expression in the endometrium following MEA.

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.

Keyhole hysterectomy is effective for women with heavy menstrual bleeding

The studyCooper K, Breeman S, Scott NW, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus endometrial ablation for women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;394:1425-36.The study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 12/35/23).To read the full NIHR Signal, go to: https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000837/keyhole-hysterectomy-is-effective-for-women-with-heavy-menstrual-bleeding.

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.

[NON-RESECTOSCOPIC ABLATION OF ENDOMETRY IN BENIGN UTERINE DISEASES (REVIEW)]

Objective - to conduct a systematic analysis of the data available in the modern literature on non-rectoscopic endometrial ablation (NRAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The review includes data from world studies for the last 7 years.

RESULTS

second generation systems based on different surgical energies and parameters of their performance. Presents the results of evaluating the effectiveness of devices and patient satisfaction; studies of possible complications, frequency of repeated operations, contraception.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of the literature data showed that the devices have high efficiency indicators, in particular, up to 97.1%, undesirable consequences are rare. NRAE in case it is an alternative to hysterectomy. It is necessary to introduce NRAE into practical health care as a method capable of providing organ-preserving treatment to a woman.

Factors associated with receiving surgical treatment for menorrhagia in England and Wales: findings from a cohort study of the National Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Audit

OBJECTIVE

To examine the factors associated with receiving surgery for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in England and Wales.

DESIGN

National cohort study.

SETTING

National Health Service hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with HMB aged 18-60 who had a new referral to secondary care.

METHODS

Patient-reported data linked to administrative hospital data. Risk ratios (RR) estimated using multivariable Poisson regression.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Surgery within 1 year of first outpatient clinic visit.

RESULTS

14 545 women were included. At their first clinic visit, mean age was 42 years, mean symptom severity score was 62 (scale ranging from 0 (least) to 100 (most severe)), 73.9% of women reported having symptoms for >1 year and 30.4% reported no prior treatment in primary care. One year later, 42.6% had received surgery. Of these, 57.8% had endometrial ablation and 37.2% hysterectomy. Women with more severe symptoms were more likely to have received surgery (most vs least severe quintile, 33.1% vs 56.0%; RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.7). Surgery was more likely among those who reported prior primary care treatment compared with those who did not (48.0% vs 31.1%; RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6). Surgery was less likely among Asian and more likely among black women, compared with white women. Surgery was not associated with socioeconomic deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of surgery for HMB depends on symptom severity and prior treatment in primary care. Referral pathways should be locally audited to ensure women with HMB receive care that addresses their individual needs and preferences, especially for those who do not receive treatment in primary care.

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.

A Prospective, Multicenter, Pivotal Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of the AEGEA Vapor Endometrial Ablation System

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the AEGEA Vapor System (Aegea Medical System, Menlo Park, CA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label, clinical trial. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 24 hours; 2 weeks; and 3, 6, and 12 months after the endometrial ablation procedure (Canadian Task Force Classification II-1).

SETTING

A private practice and outpatient and hospital settings at 15 sites in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Netherlands.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty-five premenopausal women aged 30 to 50years with HMB as determined by a pictorial blood loss assessment score ≥150. Preoperative evaluation included ultrasound, sonohysterography or hysteroscopy, and endometrial biopsy. Screening inclusion allowed treatment of up to 12-cm uterine sound lengths and nonobstructing myomata.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial ablation (120-second treatment time) was performed under varying anesthesia regimens using the vapor system from September 2014 to May 2015.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary effectiveness end point was the reduction of menstrual blood loss to a pictorial blood loss assessment score ≤75. Success was judged based on the Food and Drug Administration's objective performance criteria, derived from the success rates of the first 5 global endometrial ablation pivotal clinical trials. The secondary effectiveness end points included quality of life and patient satisfaction as assessed using the Menorrhagia Impact Questionnaire and the Aberdeen Menorrhagia Severity Score as well as the need for surgical or medical intervention to treat abnormal bleeding at any time within the first 12 months after treatment. All adverse events, including device- and procedure-related events, were recorded. At 12 months, the primary effectiveness end point was achieved in 78.7% of subjects exceeding the OPC (p = .0004); 90.8% of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment. Ninety-nine percent of subjects showed improvement in quality of life scores with an average decrease in the Menorrhagia Impact Questionnaire score by 8.1, 72% had less dysmenorrhea, and 85% of women whose sex lives were affected by their menses reported improvement in their sex lives. There were no reported serious adverse device effects or any reported serious adverse events that were procedure related.

CONCLUSION

The AEGEA Vapor System is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive option for performing in-office endometrial ablation under minimal anesthesia for the purpose of treating women who suffer from HMB.

Radiofrequency endometrial ablation - new possibility of heavy menstrual bleeding conservative treatment

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of radiofrequency endometrial ablation (RFEA) clinical efficacy in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

DESIGN

Original article.

SETTING

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital and Masaryk University Medical School, Brno.

METHODS

Study included 20 patients with HMB who had failed hormonal therapy and met the study inclusion criteria. All RFEA procedures were performed in the operating theater in general anesthesia by two experienced surgeons according to a standardized protocol. All RFEA were performed using specific disposable electrodes and radio frequency generator M-3004 (RF Medical Co., South Korea). Study outcomes were evaluated three months post-surgery included percentage of women with amenorrhoea or menstrual bleeding persistence measured by the modified Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) score. Furthermore, chronic pelvic pain intensity assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), patient satisfaction (Patient Global Impression of Improvement, PGI-I score), and the incidence of complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

All RFEAs were performed without operational or technical complications, the average age being operated was 43.0 ± 2.9 years and the operating time did not exceed ten minutes. In the early postoperative follow-up, patients did not require any analgesics and were all released to outpatient care the following day. Percentage of amenorrhea at three months post-treatment was 35.0%, mean PBAC score for women with menstrual bleeding was 1.8 ± 0.6. Patients satisfaction with the treatment was evaluated by 1.6 ± 0.6 on the PGI-I scale and long-term pelvic pain was on average 2.1 ± 0.8 by VAS, which counts an improvement of 31.0%.

CONCLUSION

The HMB treatment with RFEA achieves good clinical results in three-month evaluation with objective and also subjective parameters. The technique is suitable for outpatient treatment and is an alternative to hysteroscopy endometrial ablation. Its wider clinical usage is limited by the high cost of the radiofrequency generator and disposable probes. Keywords heavy menstrual bleeding, hysteroscopy, radiofrequency endometrial ablation, amenorrhoea, complication.

An unexpected complication following uterine artery embolisation

A 35-year-old nulliparous woman underwent uterine artery embolisation (UAE) for heavy menstrual bleeding and anaemia due to fibroids, refractive to medical and surgical treatment.Bilateral UAE was performed after cephazolin prophylaxis and analgesia. Postoperatively, pain and abdominal bloating were prominent. Symptoms were initially treated as postembolisation syndrome, and analgesia was escalated. By the third day, pain was worsening and the woman developed marked tachypnoea and tachycardia, with raised inflammatory markers and lactate. An abdominal X-ray and CT showed dilated colon. A colonoscopy demonstrated severe mucosal ulceration down to the muscular layer.A subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy formation was performed with intraoperative findings of toxic megacolon with near perforation. The cause of the toxic megacolon, in the absence of previous bowel pathology, was attributed to pseudomembranous colitis as a consequence of single dose prophylactic antibiotic.

Lipoma of round ligament on the intraperitoneal portion (abdominal site): a case report

Primary tumors of round ligament are rare, and when found are typically leiomyomas. Endometrioma, and mesothelial cysts are the benign lesions recognized as involving the round ligament. We report a case of lipoma of the round ligament in a 48-year-old premenopausal woman. Round ligament lipoma on the intraperitoneal portion (abdominal site) is very rare and it should be kept in the differential diagnosis of ovarian and abdominal masses.

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System (52 mg) for Idiopathic Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

RESULTS

Relevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Does the working temperature affect the outcome following microwave endometrial ablation?

BACKGROUND

Menorrhagia is a common gynaecological complaint, with significant burden to both its sufferers and health service providers. The first line of treatment is usually medical/pharmaceutical although in some cases surgery is required. There are now a number of minimally invasive surgical techniques available that ablate the uterine lining and prevent the need for the removal of the uterus. Microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) is one of these techniques, and this paper investigates the effect of the working temperature on outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective case note review of women who underwent MEA between June 2000 and August 2004. All women had a hysteroscopy followed by MEA. The duration of the procedure and mean working temperature of the MEA treatment was calculated. Women were followed up 6-8 months after surgery.

FINDINGS

Two hundred and eleven women underwent the procedure, with an average duration of menorrhagia of 30 months prior to the procedure. Eighty-nine percent attended follow-up, 80 % were satisfied with the procedure and 40 % were amenorrhoeic. When the procedure was performed at higher working temperature within the manufacturers guidelines women were more likely to be amenorrhoeic (78.4 vs. 77.1 °C, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

MEA is more effective in treating menorrhagia when used at a higher operating temperature.

Endometrial ablation: first- vs. second-generation techniques

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial ablation is a procedure that surgically destroys (ablates) the lining of the uterus (endometrium). The goal of endometrial ablation is to reduce menstrual flow. In some women, menstrual flow may stop completely. In some cases, endometrial ablation may be an alternative to hysterectomy. There are several techniques used to perform endometrial ablation, including electrical or electrocautery ablation, in which an electric current travels through a wire loop or rollerball is applied to the endometrial lining to cauterize the tissue; hydrothermal ablation, in which heated fluid is pumped into the uterus and destroys the endometrial lining via high temperatures; balloon therapy ablation, in which a balloon at the end of a catheter is inserted into the uterus and filled with fluid, which is then heated to the point that the endometrial tissues are eroded away; radiofrequency ablation in which a triangular mesh electrode is expanded to fill the uterine cavity, at which point the electrode delivers an electrical current and destroys the endometrial lining; cryoablation (freezing), in which a probe uses extremely low temperatures to freeze and destroy the endometrial tissues; and microwave ablation, in which microwave energy is delivered through a slender probe inserted into the uterus and destroys the endometrial lining.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of endometrial ablation performed with first- and second-generation techniques. A literature search in PubMed from January 2000 to September 2015 was performed using the keywords endometrial ablation, menorrhagia, and heavy menstrual bleeding. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials (RCT)/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies written in English from January 2000 to September 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There is no evidence that either broad category is more effective than the other in reducing HMB, and there is no evidence that rates of satisfaction differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results of the presented studies suggest that endometrial ablation is an effective therapy for menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders.

[Endometrial ablation with thermal balloon, experience in a private hospital]

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the treatment for menorrhagia includes pharmacological therapies (hormones and uterotonics) or surgical (dilatation/curettage and hysterectomy). Recently the FDA approved a non-invasive therapeutic option, known as endometrial ablation. Which it consists in a thermal balloon delivers (ThermaChoice y Thermablate EAS) which energy destroys the uterine lining, thus reducing the bleeding and even producing amenorrhea. And could offer other benefits such as reduction of the surgical time, and therefore: anesthesia time, postoperative complications and costs. Highlighting a greater patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the demographic characteristics, outcomes and patient satisfaction, which were treated with endometrial ablation for menorrhagia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A descriptive, observational and retrospective study. During a period of 11 years (March 2012 to December 2013), in a private hospital, that includes 124 patients with menorrhagia, which were treated with endometrial ablation: 53 (43%) ThermaChoice y 71 (57%) Thermablate EAS. We used T Student and Fisher method to study the results.

RESULTS

The 124 patients (100%) achieve all the criteria's of endometrial ablation according ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) were candidates for. The mean age of our patients were 38 years old, who didn't respond to pharmacologic treatment had a definitive contraception. Among these women, 119 (96%) had a reduction in bleeding en the first 12 months, 25 (31%) presented with amenorrhea and 1 (<1%) required a surgical approach. Overall, 119 patients (96%) were satisfied with their results.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation is an approved FDA treatment for menorrhagia, which is safe, accessible and effective. With an easy implementation and low rate of complications.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of heavy menstrual bleeding is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.

Complications Following Extended Freeze Endometrial Cryoablation in Uteri with Previous Uterine Incisions: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Endometrial cryoablation causes cryonecrosis of the endometrial lining as treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women who have no desire for future fertility. Extended freezes to potentially improve efficacy have been described in the literature, although no associated complications have been reported.

CASE

We present 2 cases of ureteral stricture and sigmoid colon perforation in separate patients following extended freeze cryoendometrial ablation. Both patients had a preexisting uterine scar from prior cesarean section or myomectomy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a prior uterine incision may be at increased risk for complications from extended freeze endometrial cryoablation.

Menorrhagia

INTRODUCTION

Menorrhagia (also known as heavy menstrual bleeding) limits normal activities, affects quality of life, and causes anaemia in two-thirds of women with objective menorrhagia (loss of 80 mL blood per cycle). Prostaglandin disorders may be associated with idiopathic menorrhagia and with heavy bleeding due to fibroids, adenomyosis, or use of intrauterine devices (IUDs). Fibroids have been found in 10% of women with menorrhagia overall and in 40% of women with severe menorrhagia; but half of women having a hysterectomy for menorrhagia are found to have a normal uterus.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of surgical treatments for menorrhagia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review).

RESULTS

At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 205 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 102 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 56 studies and the further review of 46 full publications. Of the 46 full articles evaluated, three systematic reviews and five RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 30 PICO combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for three surgical interventions based on information about the effectiveness and safety of dilatation and curettage, endometrial destruction (resection or ablation), and hysterectomy.

Endometrial Ablation for Aplastic Anemia-Associated Menorrhagia

Aplastic anemia is characterized by bone marrow failure and pancytopenia. In women, this can lead to menorrhagia secondary to thrombocytopenia which may require treatment depending on its severity. We report a patient with aplastic anemia-associated menorrhagia requiring emergency inpatient endometrial ablation due to transfusion dependence. A 42-year-old G3P3003 female presented with severe anemia, thrombocytopenia, and metrorrhagia. Her subsequent bone marrow biopsy revealed aplastic anemia. Her menometrorrhagia progressively worsened and she remained transfusion dependent. In the hospital, the patient underwent an uneventful endometrial ablation to control her vaginal bleeding. Patient reports only minor spotting after the procedure. Endometrial ablation is a safe and effective technique of treating acute menorrhagia in patients with aplastic anemia. It can reduce vaginal bleeding and decrease transfusion dependence.

Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is clinically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. However, women may complain of excessive bleeding when their blood loss is less than 80 mL. Hysterectomy is often used to treat women with this complaint but medical therapy may be a successful alternative.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. Case studies of two types of progesterone or progestogen-releasing systems, Progestasert and Mirena, reported reductions of up to 90% and improvements in dysmenorrhoea (pain or cramps during menstruation). Insertion, however, may be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability as a treatment. Frequent intermenstrual bleeding and spotting is also likely during the first few months after commencing treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

All randomised controlled trials of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, the specialised register of MDSG, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (inception to December 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to January 2015). Additional searches were undertaken for grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers. Companies producing progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices and experts in the field were contacted for information on published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding within primary care, family planning or specialist clinic settings were eligible for inclusion. Women with postmenopausal bleeding, intermenstrual or irregular bleeding, or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potential trials were independently assessed by at least two review authors. The review authors extracted the data independently and data were pooled where appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated from the data for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. The primary outcomes were reduction in menstrual blood loss and satisfaction; in addition, rate of adverse effects, changes in quality of life, failure of treatment and withdrawal from treatment were also assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs (2082 women). The included trials mostly assessed the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) (no conclusions could be reached from one small study assessing Progestasert which was discontinued in 2001) and so conclusions are based only on LNG IUS. Comparisons were made with placebo, oral medical treatment, endometrial destruction techniques and hysterectomy. Ratings for the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison ranged from very low to high. Limitations in the evidence included inadequate reporting of study methods and inconsistency.Seven studies compared the LNG IUS with oral medical therapy: either norethisterone acetate (NET) administered over most of the menstrual cycle, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (administered for 10 days), the oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid or usual medical treatment where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable. The LNG IUS was more effective at reducing HMB as measured by the alkaline haematin method (MD 66.91 mL, 95% CI 42.61 to 91.20; two studies, 170 women; I(2) = 81%, low quality evidence) or by Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (PBAC) scores (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; three studies, 335 women; I(2) = 79%, low quality evidence), improving quality of life and a greater number of women continued with their treatment at two years when compared with oral treatment. Although substantial heterogeneity was identified for the bleeding outcomes, the direction of effect consistently favoured the LNG IUS. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions on satisfaction. Minor adverse effects (such as pelvic pain, breast tenderness and ovarian cysts) were more common with the LNG IUS.Ten studies compared the LNG IUS with endometrial destruction techniques: three with transcervical resection, one with rollerball ablation and six with thermal balloon ablation. Evidence was inconsistent and very low quality with respect to reduction in bleeding outcomes and satisfaction was comparable between treatments (low and moderate quality evidence). Improvements in quality of life were experienced with both types of treatment. Minor adverse events were more common with the LNG IUS overall, but it appeared more cost effective compared to thermal ablation within a two-year time frame in one study.Three studies compared the LNG IUS with hysterectomy. The LNG IUS was not as successful at reducing HMB as hysterectomy (high quality evidence). The women in these studies reported improved quality of life, regardless of treatment. In spite of the high rate of surgical treatment in those having LNG IUS within 10 years, the LNG IUS was more cost effective than hysterectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) is more effective than oral medication as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). It is associated with a greater reduction in HMB, improved quality of life and appears to be more acceptable long term but is associated with more minor adverse effects than oral therapy.When compared to endometrial ablation, it is not clear whether the LNG IUS offers any benefits with regard to reduced HMB and satisfaction rates and quality of life measures were similar. Some minor adverse effects were more common with the LNG IUS but it appeared to be more cost effective than endometrial ablation techniques.The LNG IUS was less effective than hysterectomy in reducing HMB. Both treatments improved quality of life but the LNG IUS appeared more cost effective than hysterectomy for up to 10 years after treatment.

Microwave endometrial ablation after endometrial curettage for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the eticacy of microwave endometrial ablation after endometrial curettage, in selected patients with heavy menstrual bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-two premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding underwent microwave endometrial ablation at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Patras Medical School. All patients did not respond to previous medical treatment, had completed their childbearing, and did not desire future fertility. The authors chose endometrial curettage rather than hormonal pretreatment (GnRH analogs, danazol) for endometrial preparation. Posttreatment follow up protocol included physical and ultrasonographic evaluation at three, six, nine, and 12 months for the first year and yearly after.

RESULTS

The authors had no cases of uterine perforation, thermal injury to adjacent organs, and infection or sepsis. During follow up, there was a gradual decrease in amenorrhea rate (90.6% - 68.8%) and in satisfaction rate (90.6% - 71.9%). Moreover during follow up, eight women underwent to total abdominal hysterectomy. Among them, seven women had uterine myomas and one woman had adenomyosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial preparation with endometrial curettage seems to be a good alternative to hormonal pretreatment. It has the advantage of avoiding delays, side effects, and cost of hormonal pretreatment. Moreover, microwave endometrial ablation after endometrial curettage is successful and highly acceptable.

[Sepsis after thermoablation and sterilization]

Endometrial ablation is a commonly used procedure in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. The procedure is considered quite safe, but may also involve severe complications. We present a patient who developed life-threatening sepsis after the procedure.

Novasure impedance control system versus microwave endometrial ablation for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION

To compare the efficacy and safety of two different second-generation ablation devices, Novasure impedance control system and microwave endometrial ablation (MEA), in cases of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a randomized controlled trial that took place in a single Gynecological Department of a University Hospital. Sixty-six women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB), unresponsive to medical treatment, were included in the trial. The ratio of women allocated to bipolar radio-frequency ablation or MEA was 1:1. Follow-up assessments were carried out at three and 12 months post-ablation. The present main outcome measure was amenorrhea rates 12-months post-treatment.

RESULTS

The rate of amenorrhea at 12-months post-ablation was significantly higher in women treated by Novasure (25/33; 75.8%) as compared to those treated by MEA (8/33; 24.2%) (rate difference: +51.5%, 95% CI: +27.8 to +67.7).

CONCLUSION

In women with DUB, endometrial ablation with Novasure bipolar radiofrequency impedance-controlled system is associated with increased rates of amenorrhea at 12-months post-treatment as compared to the MEA method.

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

This review has been replaced by a new full review with the same title 'Pre‐operative endometrial thinning agents before endometrial destruction for heavy menstrual bleeding' published in issue 11 of The Cochrane Library 2013; authors are Yu Hwee Tan and Anne Lethaby.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Trends in the national distribution of laparoscopic hysterectomies from 2003 to 2010

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to compare the trends in undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy (versus abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy) based on patient age, race, median income and insurance type, from 2003 to 2010.

DESIGN

Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-3).

SETTING

National sample of hospital admissions after hysterectomy.

PATIENTS

Health Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to review records of women who underwent hysterectomy for either menorrhagia or leiomyoma from 2003-2010.

INTERVENTION

The predicted probability of undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy was determined for each year according to patient age, race, median income, and insurance type. The slopes of these values (i.e. the trend) was compared for each subgroup (i.e. black, white, Asian, etc.) in these categories.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 530, 154 cases were included in this study. Total number of hysterectomies decreased by 39% from 60,364 to 36,835 from 2003 to 2010. The percent of hysterectomies that were laparoscopic increased from 11% in 2003 to 29% in 2010. All groups analyzed experienced an increase in predicted probability of undergoing a laparoscopic hysterectomy. Of all women undergoing hysterectomy, the probability of undergoing a laparoscopic hysterectomy remained highest for women who were less than 35 years old, white, with the highest median income, and with private insurance from 2003-2010. The slope was significantly greater for (1) white females versus all other races analyzed (p<0.01), (2) females in the highest income quartile versus females in the lowest income quartile (p<0.01) and (3) females with private insurance versus females with Medicaid (p<0.01) or Medicare (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a gap in distribution of laparoscopic hysterectomies with regards to age, race, median income and insurance type that does not seem to be closing, despite the increased availability of laparoscopic hysterectomies.

Analysis of the safety and reliability of a hydrothermal ablation system: a multicenter, prospective postmarket study

OBJECTIVE

To obtain information on practitioner experience in the use of the Genesys HydroThermAblator (HTA) System under normal clinical conditions through documentation of the system's acute safety features, in terms of burn rates, and its technical reliability.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective, observational, multicenter, postmarket interventional clinical trial with outcome measures of acute (within 21 days post-procedure) safety, serious adverse device effects, and technical malfunctions in a population of premenopausal women > or = 18 years of age.

RESULTS

A total of 992 women (mean age, 41.7 +/- 6.8 years; range, 22-65 years) were enrolled in 18 clinical sites throughout the United States. The Genesys HTA System provided low burn rates in the intent-to-treat (n = 992 [0.4%] [95% CI 0.1-1.0%]) and evaluable (n = 931 [0.2%] [95% CI 0.1-0.8%]) subject populations. Only 1 burn was clinically significant and was defined as a serious adverse device effect (1/992 [0.10%] [95% CI 0.0-0.6%]). Fifty-three (5.1%) technical malfunctions occurred in 44 procedures, and 27 (27/44 [61.4%]) patients completed their procedures after 31 (31/ 53 [58.5%]) technical problems were addressed and resolved.

CONCLUSION

The Genesys HTA System delivers a safe and reliable treatment option for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

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.

Two cases of acute ischemic stroke associated with iron deficiency anemia due to bleeding from uterine fibroids in middle-aged women

We herein report two cases of acute ischemic stroke associated with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) due to bleeding from uterine fibroids. Anemia is not generally recognized as a risk factor for stroke. The physiological mechanisms that may factor in the development of ischemic stroke in patients with IDA include thrombocytosis, hypercoagulable state, and anemic hypoxia. In our two cases, IDA was considered to be the cause of ischemic stroke because all other known causes of stroke were ruled out. In patients with ischemic stroke due to anemia, early treatment of the anemia is important to prevent stroke recurrence.

Microwave endometrial ablation for hypermenorrhea treatment: a new era in Japan

An estimated six million women in Japan suffer from excessive menstruation and the treatment of this disorder has been undergoing dramatic changes recently. In April 2012, microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) was approved for insurance coverage as a K863-3: a hysteroscopic endometrial ablation (17,810 points). Since the introduction of MEA to Shimane University Hospital in August 2007, authors (KN, KM) have performed the procedure in 96 patients with excessive menstruation. They have also evaluated its safety and its efficacy, not only by comparing it to the existing surgical treatment but by quantifying patients' satisfaction levels and symptom improvement. The authors conclude that MEA is a safe, effective, a low-cost treatment, and they recommend that it be considered as a standard treatment for conservative therapy-resistant excessive menstruation.

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.