Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

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

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

Short-term recovery after NovaSure® endometrial ablation: a prospective cohort study

Background

Endometrial ablation is a frequently performed treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, but detailed information about recovery to help inform patients is lacking.

Objective

To gain more insight into the short-term recovery after NovaSure® endometrial ablation, with the goal of improving preprocedural counselling.

Materials and Methods

A total of 61 women who underwent endometrial ablation between March 2019 and November 2021 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands were included in this prospective cohort study.

Main outcome measures

Short-term recovery was investigated through questionnaires in the first week after the procedure. The primary outcome was the Recovery Index (RI-10). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain intensity, use of analgesics, nausea, vaginal discharge, capability of performing activities (domestic chores, sports, work), self-rated health (EQ-VAS) and the feeling of full recovery.

Results

A total of 33 women underwent the procedure under local anaesthesia and 28 women under procedural sedation. The RI-10 increased in the first week; median scores on day one, two and seven were 34 (IQR 28.5-41.5), 38.5 (IQR 31-47), and 42 (IQR 37.5-48), respectively. The median time for full recovery was five days. However, 23% of all women were not fully recovered within seven days. Women needed a median time of two days for returning to their work and 5.5 days for sporting activities. There were no differences in recovery between both anaesthesia techniques.

Conclusions

Women undergoing endometrial ablation can be informed that most will fully recover within the first week of the procedure and that there is no difference in expected recovery time according to whether the procedure is undertaken with local anaesthesia or conscious sedation.

What is New?

The short-term recovery after endometrial ablation has been mapped in this trial. This information can be used in counselling women with 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.

Indications and surgical route for hysterectomy for benign disorders: a retrospective analysis in a large Australian tertiary hospital network

PURPOSE

Hysterectomy is a common but expensive and morbid procedure. Alternative treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) are effective in up to 80% of cases, but there is substantial variation in surgical approach and pre-operative management of HMB. This study aims to assess the approach to hysterectomies for benign indications including alternative treatments and route of operation.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected patient and surgical data on all hysterectomies for benign indications from 1/4/2018 to 31/6/2020 at our tertiary-led hospital network.

RESULTS

Hysterectomies were performed in 582 women at a median age of 49(44-56) with a median BMI of 27.9(24.5-33.3)kg/m² and 251(43%) were referred from private rooms. Hysterectomies for HMB were performed laparoscopically (TLH)(156, 51.7%) more often than abdominally (TAH)(133, 44%) or vaginally (4.3, 13%), with wide variation between sites. Approach was predicted by a history of previous abdomino-pelvic surgery and uterine size but not by other patient factors (BMI, parity or comorbidities). Referral source, on the other hand, was a significant predictor of route of hysterectomy. In women with HMB without uterine abnormalities, 45% tried a levonorgestrel intrauterine device and 25% tried endometrial ablation before proceeding to surgery. The use of alternative therapies pre-operatively did not vary between sites or referral sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The variations in route of hysterectomy that are unexplained by patient factors suggest room for improvement and raises the question whether some of the patients undergoing a TAH may have been candidates for less invasive surgery. Uptake of alternative management strategies for HMB could also be improved.

Hysteroscopic‎ polypectomy with ‎endometrial resection preventing the recurrence of endometrial polyps: A single-blinded randomized clinical ‎trial

Background

Recurrence of endometrial polyp following the hysteroscopic polypectomy is a significant concern for both the patients and physicians. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combining hysteroscopic polypectomy with endometrial resection in reducing the rate of recurrence in women over 40 years old.

Methods

In a single-blinded clinical trial, 94 women with endometrial polyps who were unwilling to future pregnancy were identified and randomly allocated to the intervention (hysteroscopic‎ polypectomy + endometrial resection) ‎and control group (hysteroscopic‎ polypectomy alone) group (n=47/each). Randomization was done using a simple randomization technique‎. The primary outcome measure was the polyp recurrence. The secondary outcome measure was the number of adverse events.

Results

In total, polyp recurrence occurred in two (4.3%) patients of the intervention group and nine patients (19.1%) of the control group (P=0.019). All the recurrences occurred in the premenopausal patients (P=0.012). No adverse event was observed in any patients of both groups.

Conclusion

Adding endometrial resection to hysteroscopic polypectomy, especially in postmenopausal women, is a safe method that significantly reduces the risk of recurrence of the endometrial polyp.

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

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

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.

Management of heavy menstrual bleeding on anticoagulation

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common complication of anticoagulation, affecting ∼70% of menstruating women receiving oral anticoagulants. The risk of HMB is lower with apixaban and/or dabigatran than with rivaroxaban. HMB can result in iron deficiency with or without anemia, increased need for medical interventions, decreased quality of life, and missed school/work. Mainstays of treatment include hormone therapies such as the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, subdermal implant, and other progesterone-based therapies, which can result in decreased blood loss and, in some cases, amenorrhea. Combined hormone therapies can be used while patients continue receiving anticoagulation and are also highly effective for decreasing menstrual blood loss. Rarely, procedure-based interventions such as endometrial ablation may be required. Patients should be evaluated for iron deficiency and anemia and offered supportive therapies as needed. Abbreviating the course of anticoagulation or skipping doses can increase the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism by as much as fivefold, but switching oral anticoagulants may be considered. Awareness of HMB and careful history taking at each visit are crucial to avoid a missed diagnosis.

Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics.

METHODS

We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.

Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy in Reproductive Age: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Tertiary Care Hospital

Introduction Hysterectomy is a common surgical procedure in women, and oophorectomy may also be performed with the hysterectomy. The objective of this study was to identify clinical indications and pathological findings in hysterectomies, performed for gynecological causes, in women of reproductive age (15-49 years) and to determine if oophorectomy or ovarian conservation was performed with the hysterectomy as well as the pathological findings in the ovaries. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted in the department of Pathology at Dow Medical College in Karachi, Pakistan, from September 2017 to December 2018. Data were recorded from the pathology reports of hysterectomy specimens received in the department. Data of hysterectomies performed for gynecological causes in women of reproductive age group were selected and analyzed, using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington) and SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York). Data of women more than 49 years and obstetric hysterectomies were excluded. Results Three hundred sixty-one hysterectomies were received; 157 of which were hysterectomies performed in women of reproductive age for gynecological reasons. The mean age of the women was 40.37 (± 5.47) years. Abnormal uterine bleeding was the most frequent clinical indication for hysterectomy in 81 (51.59%) women, followed by uterine prolapse in 29 (18.47%) and leiomyoma in 22 (14.01%). Common pathologies in the endometrium were endometritis in 14 (8.92%) and endometrial polyp in nine (5.73%). In the myometrium, leiomyoma was reported in 52 (33.12%) cases, adenomyosis in 37 (23.57%), and both leiomyoma and adenomyosis in 37 (23.57%) women. Uterine prolapse was histologically identified in 38 (24.20%) women. Oophorectomy was performed on 107 (68.15%) women, and out of these, 83 (77.59%) women's ovaries showed either normal histology or functional cysts. Ovarian pathologies reported were endometriosis, serous cystadenomas and oophoritis in five patients each (4.81%), ovarian serous carcinoma in three (2.88%), and mucinous carcinoma in one (0.96%) patient. Conclusion Abnormal uterine bleeding was the most common clinical indication for hysterectomy in women of reproductive age. The common pathologies in the hysterectomies were endometritis, endometrial polyp, leiomyoma, adenomyosis, and uterine prolapse. Most of the ovaries removed with the hysterectomy did not show any significant pathology, therefore, further studies in this direction are recommended for confirmation of this finding. Ovarian conservation may be considered in women undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding or other uterine causes and with no radiological or surgical indication for oophorectomy.