Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

Quality of Life after Risk-Reducing Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer Prevention: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Risk-reducing hysterectomy (RRH) is the gold-standard prevention for endometrial cancer (EC). Knowledge of the impact on quality-of-life (QoL) is crucial for decision-making. This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence.

METHODS

We searched major databases until July 2022 (CRD42022347631). Given the paucity of data on RRH, we also included hysterectomy as treatment for benign disease. We used validated quality-assessment tools, and performed qualitative synthesis of QoL outcomes.

RESULTS

Four studies (64 patients) reported on RRH, 25 studies (1268 patients) on hysterectomy as treatment for uterine bleeding. There was moderate risk-of-bias in many studies. Following RRH, three qualitative studies found substantially lowered cancer-worry, with no decision-regret. Oophorectomy (for ovarian cancer prevention) severely impaired menopause-specific QoL and sexual-function, particularly without hormone-replacement. Quantitative studies supported these results, finding low distress and generally high satisfaction. Hysterectomy as treatment of bleeding improved QoL, resulted in high satisfaction, and no change or improvements in sexual and urinary function, although small numbers reported worsening.

CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence on QoL after RRH. Whilst there are benefits, most adverse consequences arise from oophorectomy. Benign hysterectomy allows for some limited comparison; however, more research is needed for outcomes in the population of women at increased EC-risk.

Expulsion rates of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system are similar among women with heavy menstrual bleeding and users for contraception

OBJECTIVE

To compare the expulsion rates of the levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg intrauterine system (IUS) among women with heavy menstrual bleeding versus women using solely for contraception.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an audit study of 548 (8.8%) women with heavy menstrual bleeding and 5655 (91.2%) users for contraception (comparison group) for 4 years in Campinas, Brazil. We retrieved sociodemographic data, expulsion rates, and variables associated to device placement. Among women with heavy menstrual bleeding, we placed the devices after the cessation of bleeding or after the reduction of menstrual flow.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 548 (5.6%) women with heavy menstrual bleeding and 315 of 5655 (5.6%) from the comparison group expelled the device. This constituted 7.8 expulsions/100 women-years in women with heavy menstrual bleeding and 10.3 expulsions/100 women-years from the comparison group (p = 0.94). Expulsion risk was associated with previous cesarean delivery in both groups (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.36;2.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Expulsion rates of the LNG IUS among women with heavy menstrual bleeding whose IUS was placed after the cessation or reduction of bleeding were similar to expulsion rates among users for contraception. Previous cesarean delivery was a risk factor for expulsion.

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.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Uterine fibroids - what's new?

Uterine fibroids are the commonest benign tumours of women and affect all races with a cumulative lifetime risk of around 70%. Despite their high prevalence and the heavy economic burden of treatment, fibroids have received remarkably little attention compared to common female malignant tumours. This article reviews recent progress in understanding the biological nature of fibroids, their life cycle and their molecular genetic origins. Recent progress in surgical and interventional management is briefly reviewed, and medical management options, including treatment with selective progesterone receptor modulators, are also discussed.

Low-dose dexamethasone as a treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: protocol for response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM)

INTRODUCTION

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) diminishes individual quality-of-life and poses substantial societal burden. In HMB endometrium, inactivation of cortisol (by enzyme 11β hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (11βHSD2)), may cause local endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency and hence increased angiogenesis and impaired vasoconstriction. We propose that 'rescue' of luteal phase endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency could reduce menstrual bleeding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DexFEM is a double-blind response-adaptive parallel-group placebo-controlled trial in women with HMB (108 to be randomised), with active treatment the potent oral synthetic glucocorticoid dexamethasone, which is relatively resistant to 11βHSD2 inactivation. Participants will be aged over 18 years, with mean measured menstrual blood loss (MBL) for two screening cycles ≥50 mL. The primary outcome is reduction in MBL from screening. Secondary end points are questionnaire assessments of treatment effect and acceptability. Treatment will be for 5 days in the mid-luteal phases of three treatment menstrual cycles. Six doses of low-dose dexamethasone (ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 mg twice daily) will be compared with placebo, to ascertain optimal dose, and whether this has advantage over placebo. Statistical efficiency is maximised by allowing randomisation probabilities to 'adapt' at five points during enrolment phase, based on the response data available so far, to favour doses expected to provide greatest additional information on the dose-response. Bayesian Normal Dynamic Linear Modelling, with baseline MBL included as covariate, will determine optimal dose (re reduction in MBL). Secondary end points will be analysed using generalised dynamic linear models. For each dose for all end points, a 95% credible interval will be calculated for effect versus placebo.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Dexamethasone is widely used and hence well-characterised safety-wise. Ethical approval has been obtained from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (12/SS/0147). Trial findings will be disseminated via open-access peer-reviewed publications, conferences, clinical networks, public lectures, and our websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01769820; EudractCT 2012-003405-98.

Tranexamic acid: a potential adjunct to resectoscopic endometrial ablation

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a substantial cause of ill health in women worldwide. In this study, our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of endometrial ablation using a modified urologic resectoscope along with tranexamic acid in AUB. Sixty patients were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent resectoscopic surgery. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 (n = 30) received 500 mg of tranexamic acid. Group 2 (n = 30) served as the control group and underwent surgery without the administration of tranexamic acid. Total pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) scores were significantly lower postoperatively (152.14 ± 9.65 versus 6.6 ± 0.90; P < 0.001). When stratified by the administration of tranexamic acid, the number of patients with a postoperative day 1 PBAC score ≤15 was higher in the tranexamic group (19 versus 13), whereas the number of patients with a post operative day 1 PBAC score >15 was lower in the tranexamic group (11 versus 17), but the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). AUB is a complex disease that may need repeated treatments. In expert hands, the treatment rate of resectoscopic surgery seems acceptable. However, some patients may require additional interventions, like repeated surgery, hysterectomy, or a drug therapy in the long run. Introduction of tranexamic acid as a potential adjunct to rollerball endometrial ablation may present an interesting option that requires additional well-designed studies before firm conclusions can be made.

An audit of indications, complications, and justification of hysterectomies at a teaching hospital in India

Objective. Aim of this audit was to analyze indications, complications, and correlation of preoperative diagnosis with final histopathology report of all hysterectomies, performed in a premier teaching hospital. Methods. Present study involved all patients who underwent hysterectomy at a premier university hospital in Southern India, in one year (from 1 January, 2012, to 31 December, 2012). Results. Most common surgical approach was abdominal (74.7%), followed by vaginal (17.8%), and laparoscopic (6.6%) hysterectomy. Most common indication for hysterectomy was symptomatic fibroid uterus (39.9%), followed by uterovaginal prolapse (16.3%). Overall complication rate was 8.5%. Around 84% had the same pathology as suspected preoperatively. Only 6 (5 with preoperative diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding and one with high grade premalignant cervical lesion) had no significant pathology in their hysterectomy specimen. Conclusion. Hysterectomy is used commonly to improve the quality of life; however at times it is a lifesaving procedure. As any surgical procedure is associated with a risk of complications, the indication should be carefully evaluated. With the emergence of many conservative approaches to deal with benign gynecological conditions, it is prudent to discuss available options with the patient before taking a direct decision of surgically removing her uterus.

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 cause anaemia. First-line therapy has traditionally been medical therapy but this is frequently ineffective. On the other hand, hysterectomy is obviously 100% effective in stopping bleeding but is more costly and can cause severe complications. Endometrial ablation is less invasive and preserves the uterus, although long-term studies have found that the costs of ablative surgery approach the cost of hysterectomy due to the requirement for repeat procedures. A large number of techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. The gold standard techniques (laser, transcervical resection of the endometrium and rollerball) require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope and, although safe, require skilled surgeons. A number of newer techniques have recently been developed, most of which are less time consuming. However, hysteroscopy may still be required as part of the ablative techniques and some of these techniques must be considered to be still under development, requiring refinement and investigation.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo, (from inception to June 2013). We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature and reference lists of retrieved studies, and made contact with experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies that manufacture ablation devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different endometrial ablation techniques in women with a complaint of HMB without uterine pathology were eligible. The outcomes included reduction of HMB, improvement in quality of life, operative outcomes, satisfaction with the outcome, complications and need for further surgery or hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact authors for clarification of data in some trials. Adverse events were only assessed if they were separately measured in the included trials. Comparisons were made with individual techniques and an overall comparison between first and second-generation ablation methods was also undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five trials (4040 women) with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 372 were included in the review. A majority of the trials had a specified method of randomisation, adequate description of dropouts and no evidence of selective reporting. Less than half had adequate allocation concealment and most were unblinded.There was insufficient evidence to suggest superiority of a particular technique in the pairwise comparisons between individual ablation and resection methods.In the overall comparison of the newer 'blind' techniques (second-generation) with the gold standard hysteroscopic ablative techniques (first-generation) there was no evidence of overall differences in the improvement in HMB (12 RCTs) or patient satisfaction (11 RCTs).Surgery was an average of 15 minutes shorter (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95% CI 10.1 to 19.7, 9 RCTs; low quality evidence), local anaesthesia was more likely to be employed (relative risk (RR) 2.8, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.4, 6 RCTs; low quality evidence) and equipment failure was more likely (RR 4.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 12.4, 3 RCTs; moderate quality evidence) with second-generation ablation. Women undergoing newer (second-generation) ablative procedures were less likely to have fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations and hematometra than women undergoing the more traditional type of ablation and resection techniques (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79, 4 RCTs; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, 8 RCTs; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.61, 8 RCTs; and RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85, 5 RCTs; all moderate quality evidence, respectively). However, women were more likely to have nausea and vomiting and uterine cramping (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.0, 4 RCTs; and RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.4, 2 RCTs; both moderate quality evidence, respectively). The risk of requiring either further surgery of any kind or hysterectomy specifically was reduced with second-generation ablative methods compared to first-generation ablation up to 10 years after surgery (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99, 1 RCT; and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96, 1 RCT; both moderate quality evidence, respectively) but not at earlier follow up. Additional research is required to confirm this finding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation techniques offer a less invasive surgical alternative to hysterectomy. The rapid development of a number of new methods of endometrial destruction has made systematic comparisons between individual methods and with the 'gold standard' first-generation techniques difficult. Most of the newer techniques are technically easier to perform than traditional hysteroscopy-based methods but technical difficulties with the new equipment need to be addressed. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that success, satisfaction rates and complication profiles of newer techniques of ablation compare favourably with hysteroscopic techniques.

Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative effectiveness of hysterectomy, endometrial destruction (both "first generation" hysteroscopic and "second generation" non-hysteroscopic techniques), and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of data from individual patients, with direct and indirect comparisons made on the primary outcome measure of patients' dissatisfaction.

DATA SOURCES

Data were sought from the 30 randomised controlled trials identified after a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, reference lists, and contact with experts. Raw data were available from 2814 women randomised into 17 trials (seven trials including 1359 women for first v second generation endometrial destruction; six trials including 1042 women for hysterectomy v first generation endometrial destruction; one trial including 236 women for hysterectomy v Mirena; three trials including 177 women for second generation endometrial destruction v Mirena). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing hysterectomy, first and second generation endometrial destruction, and Mirena for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to other medical treatment.

RESULTS

At around 12 months, more women were dissatisfied with outcome with first generation hysteroscopic techniques than with hysterectomy (13% v 5%; odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 3.9, P<0.001), but hospital stay (weighted mean difference 3.0 days, 2.9 to 3.1 days, P<0.001) and time to resumption of normal activities (5.2 days, 4.7 to 5.7 days, P<0.001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes were comparable with first and second generation techniques (odds ratio 1.2, 0.9 to 1.6, P=0.2), although second generation techniques were quicker (weighted mean difference 14.5 minutes, 13.7 to 15.3 minutes, P<0.001) and women recovered sooner (0.48 days, 0.20 to 0.75 days, P<0.001), with fewer procedural complications. Indirect comparison suggested more unsatisfactory outcomes with second generation techniques than with hysterectomy (11% v 5%; odds ratio 2.3, 1.3 to 4.2, P=0.006). Similar estimates were seen when Mirena was indirectly compared with hysterectomy (17% v 5%; odds ratio 2.2, 0.9 to 5.3, P=0.07), although this comparison lacked power because of the limited amount of data available for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

More women are dissatisfied after endometrial destruction than after hysterectomy. Dissatisfaction rates are low after all treatments, and hysterectomy is associated with increased length of stay in hospital and a longer recovery period. Definitive evidence on effectiveness of Mirena compared with more invasive procedures is lacking.

Hysterectomy or a minimal invasive alternative? A systematic review on quality of life and satisfaction

Nowadays, an increasing number of minimal invasive treatment alternatives to hysterectomy may be offered to the patient. In determining the appropriate treatment option, the patient has a distinct dilemma if a minimal invasive treatment with lesser effect than hysterectomy should be chosen or if a hysterectomy should be chosen which is a major surgery and requires longer recovery than the minimal invasive alternative. Quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires that take subjective health perception into account are currently used to assess the treatment effects. The objective of this literature study is to determine and discuss the role of QoL as an outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCT) or systematic reviews of RCTs that study the treatment effect of hysterectomy compared to that of minimal invasive alternatives. A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed database and in the Cochrane database to find randomized trials and systematic reviews of randomized trials, comparing hysterectomy with minimal invasive or conservative treatment options with sufficient follow-up using satisfaction, health status, and quality of life as outcomes. The results were based on nine randomized trials and two systematic reviews. The differences are mostly in favor of hysterectomy. In two out of four studied treatment alternatives, the satisfaction or health status is different in favor of hysterectomy while the QoL is equivalent. After 2 years of follow-up, differences between both groups have disappeared, possibly because of the crossover effect. Possible reasons for the lesser response of QoL compared to satisfaction or health status are discussed. The fundamental question if patients have a better quality of life at all times if they choose for a minimal invasive alternative of hysterectomy remains unresolved. Information, individualization, and freedom of choice before surgery probably best serve the sense of well being and quality of life thereafter.

Endometrial resection / 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 cause anaemia. First-line therapy has traditionally been medical therapy but this is frequently ineffective. On the other hand, hysterectomy is obviously 100% effective in stopping bleeding but is more costly and can cause severe complications. Endometrial ablation is less invasive and preserves the uterus, although long-term studies have found that the costs of ablative surgery approach the cost of hysterectomy due to the requirement for repeat procedures. A large number of techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. The gold standard techniques (laser, transcervical resection of the endometrium and rollerball) require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope and, although safe, require skilled surgeons. A number of newer techniques have recently been developed, most of which are less time consuming. However, hysteroscopy may still be required as part of the ablative techniques and some of them must be considered to be still under development, requiring refinement and investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of methods used to destroy the endometrium to reduce HMB in premenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (from inception to August 2009). We also searched trial registers and other sources of unpublished or grey literature, reference lists of retrieved studies, experts in the field and made contact with pharmaceutical companies that manufactured ablation devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different endometrial ablation techniques in women with a complaint of heavy menstrual bleeding without uterine pathology. The outcomes included reduction of heavy menstrual bleeding, improvement in quality of life, operative outcomes, satisfaction with the outcome, complications and need for further surgery or hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for quality and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact authors for clarification of data in some trials. Adverse events were only assessed if they were separately measured in the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

In the comparison of the newer 'blind' techniques (second generation) with the gold standard hysteroscopic ablative techniques (first generation), there was no evidence of overall differences in the improvement in HMB or patient satisfaction.Surgery was an average of 15 minutes shorter (weighted mean difference (WMD) 14.9, 95% CI 10.1 to 19.7), local anaesthesia was more likely to be employed (odds ratio (OR) 6.4, 95% CI 3.0 to 13.7) and equipment failure was more likely (OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 14.0) with second-generation ablation. Women undergoing newer ablative procedures were less likely to have fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations and hematometra than women undergoing the more traditional type of ablation and resection techniques (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.77; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0; OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.6 and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.85, respectively). However, women were more likely to have nausea and vomiting and uterine cramping (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.9 and OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation techniques offer a less invasive surgical alternative to hysterectomy. The rapid development of a number of new methods of endometrial destruction has made systematic comparisons between methods and with the 'gold standard' first generation techniques difficult. Most of the newer techniques are technically easier than hysteroscopy-based methods to perform but technical difficulties with new equipment need to be ironed out. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that success rates and complication profiles of newer techniques of ablation compare favourably with hysteroscopic techniques.

Financial and quality-of-life burden of dysfunctional uterine bleeding among women agreeing to obtain surgical treatment

PURPOSE

In this study, we sought to 1) describe elements of the financial and quality-of-life burden of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) from the perspective of women who agreed to obtain surgical treatment; 2) explore associations between DUB symptom characteristics and the financial and quality-of-life burden; 3) estimate the annual dollar value of the financial burden; and 4) estimate the most that could be spent on surgery to eliminate DUB symptoms for which medical treatment has been unsuccessful that would result in a $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

METHODS

We collected baseline data on DUB symptoms and aspects of the financial and quality-of-life burden for 237 women agreeing to surgery for DUB in a randomized trial comparing hysterectomy with endometrial ablation. Measures included out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenditures, excess expenditures on pads or tampons, the value of time missed from paid work and home management activities, and health utility. We used chi2 and t tests to assess the statistical significance of associations between DUB characteristics and the financial and quality-of-life burden. The annual financial burden was estimated.

RESULTS

Pelvic pain and cramps were associated with activity limitations and tiredness was associated with a lower health utility. Excess pharmaceutical and pad and tampon costs were $333 per patient per year (95% confidence interval [CI], $263-$403). Excess paid work and home management loss costs were $2,291 per patient per year (95% CI, $1847-$2752). Effective surgical treatment costing $40,000 would be cost-effective compared with unsuccessful medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

The financial and quality-of-life effects of DUB represent a substantial burden.

First-generation endometrial ablation: roller-ball vs loop vs laser

Hysteroscopic guided or first generation endometrial ablation methods include transcervical endometrial resection, and rollerball and laser ablation. These techniques have been shown to be effective and safe alternatives to hysterectomy for dysfunctional uterine bleeding resulting in reduction in menstrual blood loss and dysmenorrhoea, correction of anaemia and improvement in quality of life. Compared with hysterectomy, treatment is associated with lower morbidity, shorter hospitalisation and faster recovery, and reduced treatment costs. As a result, the 1st generation ablation techniques are recognized as the "gold standard" ablation methods. There are many similarities between the three techniques with respect to surgical principles and effectiveness. Certainly, menstrual improvement and patient satisfaction are similar with all three methods. In contrast, the complication profile of the three techniques is different, but surgical experience is arguably a much more important arbiter of patient safety than the technique itself.

Health technology assessment of surgical therapies for benign gynaecological disease

This chapter summarises the evidence of the benefits and harm of surgical therapies for benign gynaecological disease. We have limited the discussion in this chapter to three gynaecological conditions - menorrhagia, endometriosis and benign ovarian tumours - with a further section on the different surgical approaches for performing a hysterectomy for menorrhagia due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding and pelvic masses such as fibroids and benign adnexal masses. The currently available evidence suggests that there is little to choose between the four first-generation endometrial destruction techniques - laser ablation, transcervical resection of endometrium, vaporisation ablation and rollerball ablation - in terms of clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction. There is a paucity of evidence with regards to the comparison of the different second-generation endometrial-destruction techniques but current evidence suggests that bipolar radiofrequency ablation is more effective than thermal balloon ablation for treating menorrhagia. Overall, the second-generation techniques are at least as effective as first-generation methods but are easier to perform and can be done under local rather than general anaesthesia in some circumstances. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation is an alternative to hysterectomy and should be offered to women with menorrhagia because of its high satisfaction rates, shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, earlier recovery and reduced postoperative complications; hysterectomy remains the surgical option of choice for women with intractable menorrhagia despite repeated endometrial ablations and for those who do not wish under any circumstances to continue to have menstrual bleeding. The combined use of laparoscopic laser ablation, adhesiolysis and uterine nerve ablation has been shown to have a beneficial effect on pelvic pain associated with mild to moderate endometriosis. Current evidence also supports the use of laparoscopic treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis to improve the on-going pregnancy and live birth rate in infertile patients. The current available evidence suggests that the laparoscopic approach is superior to laparotomy for the surgical management of benign ovarian cysts. It results in less postoperative pain and a shorter postoperative hospital stay; it also costs less. With regards to the surgical approach for performing a hysterectomy for menorrhagia and benign pelvic masses, vaginal hysterectomy should be performed over laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy when possible. Where it is not possible to perform the hysterectomy vaginally, then laparoscopic hysterectomy can be employed instead of abdominal hysterectomy to avoid a laparotomy scar. There appears to be no significant advantage in performing a subtotal hysterectomy instead of the total removal of the uterine corpus and cervix.

Endometrial destruction 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 cause anaemia. First-line therapy has traditionally been medical therapy but this is frequently ineffective. On the other hand, hysterectomy is obviously 100% effective in stopping bleeding but is more costly and can cause severe complications. Endometrial ablation is less invasive and preserves the uterus, although long-term studies have found that the costs of ablative surgery approach the cost of hysterectomy due to the requirement for repeat procedures. A large number of techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. The gold standard techniques (laser, transcervical resection of the endometrium and rollerball) require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope and, although safe, require skilled surgeons. A number of newer techniques have recently been developed, most of which are less time consuming. However, hysteroscopy may still be required as part of the ablative techniques and some of them must be considered to be still under development, requiring refinement and investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of methods used to destroy the endometrium to reduce HMB in premenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (April 2004). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1980 to July 2004), Current Contents (1993 to week 38, 2001), Biological Abstracts (1980 to June 2001), PsycLIT (1967 to August 2001), CINAHL (1982 to July 2004) and the metaregister of controlled trials and ISRCTN register (December 2004). We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different endometrial ablation techniques in women with a complaint of heavy menstrual bleeding without uterine pathology. The outcomes included reduction of heavy menstrual bleeding, improvement in quality of life, operative outcomes, satisfaction with the outcome, complications and need for further surgery or hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for quality and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact authors for clarification of data in some trials. Adverse events were only assessed if they were separately measured in the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

In the comparison of the newer non-hysteroscopic techniques (second generation) with the gold standard hysteroscopic ablative techniques (first generation) overall, surgery was an average of 15 minutes shorter (weighted mean difference (WMD) 14.9, 95% CI 10.1 to 19.7), local anaesthesia was more likely to be employed (odds ratio (OR) 8.3, 95% CI 3.9 to 17.5) and equipment failure was more likely (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 13.8) with second-generation ablation. Women undergoing newer ablative procedures were less likely to have fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations and hematometra than women undergoing the more traditional type of ablation and resection techniques (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.5; OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.7; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.3 and OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.7, respectively). However, women were more likely to have nausea and vomiting and uterine cramping (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4 and OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.9, respectively). Some differences were also found in amenorrhoea rates and satisfaction rates, but there did not appear to be a trend over time so these results may be due to chance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation techniques continue to play an important role in the management of HMB. The rapid development of a number of new methods of endometrial destruction has made systematic comparisons between methods and with the 'gold standard' of transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) difficult. Most of the newer techniques are technically easier than hysteroscopy-based methods to perform. However, uterine perforation, which is the major complication of endometrial ablation, cannot be excluded without hysteroscopy. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that success rates and complication profiles of newer techniques of ablation compare favourably with TCRE, although technical difficulties with new equipment need to be ironed out.

A randomized trial among women with heavy menstruation -- impact of a decision aid on treatment outcomes and costs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a decision aid for menorrhagia on treatment outcomes and costs over a 12-month follow-up.

DESIGN

Randomized trial and pre-trial prospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Gynaecology outpatient clinics in 14 Finnish hospitals, 363 (randomized trial) plus 206 (cohort study) patients with menorrhagia.

INTERVENTION

A decision aid booklet explaining menorrhagia and treatment options, mailed to patients before their first clinic appointment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health related quality of life, psychological well-being, menstrual symptoms, satisfaction with treatment outcome, use and cost of health care services.

RESULTS

All study groups experienced overall improvement in health-related quality of life, anxiety, and psychosomatic and menstrual symptoms, but not in sexual life. Treatment in the intervention group was more active than in the control group, with more frequent course of medication and less undecided treatments. However, there were no marked disparities in health outcomes, satisfaction with treatment outcome and costs. Total costs (including productivity loss) per woman because of menorrhagia over the 12-month follow-up were 2760 and 3094 in the intervention and control group, respectively (P = 0.1). The pre-trial group also had a significantly lower rate of uterus saving surgery compared with the control group, but no difference in costs because of menorrhagia treatment.

CONCLUSION

Despite some differences in treatment courses, a decision aid for menorrhagia in booklet form did not increase the use of health services or treatment costs, nor had it impact on health outcomes or satisfaction with outcome of treatment.

Quality of care: replacing or removing ineffective services

Clinicians have the important quality assurance task of implementing changes to treatments offered, on the basis of clinical effectiveness. Problems seem to arise when evidence emerges, casting doubt on the effectiveness of existing treatments, that require services to be substituted or reduced. In such cases, change is often slow and inconsistent across wide geographic areas. This study identifies factors that influence the success or failure of attempts to replace or reduce ineffective treatments. Success factors include the need for external support for a change, the development of training and education for staff, transitional resourcing and multi‐agency planning. Conflicting evidence, poor implementation planning, a lack of experience and internal organization issues were generally associated with failure.