Efficacy and satisfaction rate comparing endometrial ablation by rollerball electrocoagulation to uterine balloon thermal ablation in a randomised controlled trial

First and second-generation endometrial ablation devices: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

First-generation and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA) techniques, along with medical treatment and invasive surgery, are considered successful lines of management for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). We set out to determine the efficacy of first and second-generation ablation techniques compared with medical treatment, invasive surgery and different modalities of the EA techniques themselves.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a frequentist network.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus for all published studies up to 1 March 2021 using relevant keywords.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared premenopausal women with AUB receiving the intervention of second-generation EA techniques.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

49 high-quality RCTs with 8038 women were included. We extracted and pooled the data and then analysed to estimate the network meta-analysis models within a frequentist framework. We used the random-effects model of the netmeta package in R (V.3.6.1) and the 'Meta-Insight' website.

RESULTS

Our network meta-analysis showed many varying results according to specific outcomes. The uterine balloon ablation had significantly higher amenorrhoea rates than other techniques in both short (hydrothermal ablation (risk ratio (RR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.37; 0.72), microwave ablation (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.31; 0.59), first-generation techniques (RR=0.44, 95% CI 0.33; 0.59), endometrial laser intrauterine therapy (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.10; 0.32) and bipolar radio frequency treatments (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15; 0.31)) and long-term follow-up (microwave ablation (RR=0.11, 95% CI 0.01; 0.86), bipolar radio frequency ablation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90), first generation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90) and endometrial laser intrauterine thermal therapy (RR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01; 0.36)). When calculating efficacy based only on calculated bleeding scores, the highest scores were achieved by cryoablation systems (p-score=0.98).

CONCLUSION

Most second-generation EA systems were superior to first-generation systems, and statistical superiority between devices depended on which characteristic was measured (secondary amenorrhoea rate, treatment of AUB, patient satisfaction or treatment of dysmenorrhoea). Although our study was limited by a paucity of data comparing large numbers of devices, we conclude that there is no evidence at this time that any one of the examined second-generation systems is clearly superior to all others.

Variation of outcome reporting in studies of interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) detrimentally effects women. It is important to be able to compare treatments and synthesise data to understand which interventions are most beneficial, however, when there is variation in outcome reporting, this is difficult. Objectives: To identify variation in reported outcomes in clinical studies of interventions for HMB. Materials and methods: Searches were performed in medical databases and trial registries, using the terms ‘heavy menstrual bleeding’, menorrhagia*, hypermenorrhoea*, HMB, “heavy period „period“, effective*, therapy*, treatment, intervention, manage* and associated MeSH terms. Two authors independently reviewed and selected citations according to pre-defined selection criteria, including both randomised and observational studies. The following data were extracted- study characteristics, methodology and quality, and all reported outcomes. Analysis considered the frequency of reporting. Results: There were 14 individual primary outcomes, however reporting was varied, resulting in 45 specific primary outcomes. There were 165 specific secondary outcomes. The most reported outcomes were menstrual blood loss and adverse events. Conclusions: A core outcome set (COS) would reduce the evident variation in reporting of outcomes in studies of HMB, allowing more complete combination and comparison of study results and preventing reporting bias. What is new? This in-depth review of past research into heavy menstrual bleeding shows that there is the need for a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Prognostic Factors for the Failure of Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of prognostic factors predicting failure of second-generation endometrial ablation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from 1988 until February 2019. The search was conducted without language restrictions using the following search terms: "endometrial ablation," "prognosis," "predict," "long term," "late onset," "outcome."

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The literature search provided a total of 990 studies. All types of studies reporting about prognostic factors of second-generation endometrial ablation failure were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

After screening for eligibility, 56 studies were included in this review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. In these 56 studies, 157,830 women were included. We evaluated 10 prognostic factors: age, myomas, history of tubal ligation, body mass index, parity, preexisting dysmenorrhea, caesarean delivery, bleeding pattern, uterus position, and uterus length. Meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome (surgical reintervention) to estimate summary treatment effects. Younger age (aged 35 years or younger, odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% CI 1.19-2.36; aged 40 years or younger, OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.30-1.93; aged 45 years or younger OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.28-2.07), prior tubal ligation (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.73), and preexisting dysmenorrhea (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.41-3.19) were associated with an increased risk of surgical reintervention. Studies investigating the prognostic factors myomas and obesity showed conflicting results.

CONCLUSION

Younger age, prior tubal ligation and preexisting dysmenorrhea were found to be associated with failure of endometrial ablation. Obesity and the presence of large submucous myomas may be associated with failure, as well, though more research is necessary to estimate the influence of these factors. It is important to take the results of this review into account when counselling women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019126247.

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.

Randomized controlled trial of thermal balloon ablation versus vaginal hysterectomy for leiomyoma-induced heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of thermal balloon ablation (TBA) with that of vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of leiomyoma-induced heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

METHODS

An open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted between November 1, 2012, and October 31, 2014, in a tertiary care hospital in Delhi, India. Eligible women with HMB (aged ≥40 years, uterus size ≤14 weeks of pregnancy, leiomyoma ≤5 cm, uterocervical length ≤12 cm) were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo TBA or vaginal hysterectomy using computer-generated random number tables. The primary outcome was the number of women in the TBA group with HMB 6 months after surgery. Analyses were by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Each group contained 20 women. No women in the TBA group had HMB at 6 months. Nineteen women were amenorrheic by 6 months and one was hypomenorrheic.

CONCLUSION

TBA can replace vaginal hysterectomy in some perimenopausal women with uterine leiomyomas. Clinical Trials Registry India: CTRI/2016/07/007119.

Economic and clinical benefits of endometrial radiofrequency ablation compared with other ablation techniques in women with menorrhagia: a retrospective analysis with German health claims data

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic and clinical benefits of endometrial radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared with other ablation techniques for the treatment of menorrhagia.

METHODS

Using German health claims data, women meeting defined inclusion criteria for the intervention group (RFA) were selected. A comparable control group (other endometrial ablations) was established using propensity score matching. These two groups were compared during the quarter of treatment (QoT) and a follow-up of 2 years for the following outcomes: costs during QoT and during follow-up, repeated menorrhagia diagnoses during follow-up and necessary retreatments during follow-up.

RESULTS

After performing propensity score matching, 50 cases could be allocated to the intervention group, while 38 were identified as control cases. Patients in the RFA group had 5% fewer repeat menorrhagia diagnoses (40% vs 45%; not significant) and 5% fewer treatments associated with recurrent menorrhagia (6% vs 11%; not significant) than cases in the control group. During the QoT, the RFA group incurred €578 additional costs (€2,068 vs €1,490; ns). However, during follow-up, the control group incurred €1,254 additional costs (€4,561 vs €5,815; ns), with medication, outpatient physician consultations, and hospitals costs being the main cost drivers. However, none of the results were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Although RFA was more cost-intensive in the QoT compared with other endometrial ablation techniques, an average total savings of €676 was generated during the follow-up period. While having evidence that RFA is clinically equivalent to other endometrial ablation procedures, we generated indications that RFA is non-inferior and favorable with regard to economic outcomes.

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.

Second generation endometrial ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative effectiveness of second generation ablation techniques in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis on the primary outcome measures of amenorrhoea, heavy bleeding, and patients' dissatisfaction with treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Nineteen randomised controlled trials (involving 3287 women) were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to April 2011. The reference lists of known relevant articles were searched for further articles. Two reviewers independently selected articles without language restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials involving second generation endometrial destruction techniques for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to medical treatment.

RESULTS

Of the three most commonly used techniques, network meta-analysis showed that bipolar radiofrequency and microwave ablation resulted in higher rates of amenorrhoea than thermal balloon ablation at around 12 months (odds ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 4.12, P<0.001; and 1.66, 1.01 to 2.71, P=0.05, respectively), but there was no evidence of a convincing difference between the three techniques in the number of women dissatisfied with treatment or still experiencing heavy bleeding. Compared with bipolar radio frequency and microwave devices, an increased number of women still experienced heavy bleeding after free fluid ablation (2.19, 1.07 to 4.50, P=0.03; and 2.91, 1.23 to 6.88, P=0.02, respectively). Compared with radio frequency ablation, free fluid ablation was associated with reduced rates of amenorrhoea (0.36, 0.19 to 0.67, P=0.004) and increased rates of dissatisfaction (4.79, 1.07 to 21.5, P=0.04). Of the less commonly used devices, endometrial laser intrauterine thermotherapy was associated with increased rates of amenorrhoea compared with all the other devices, while cryoablation led to a reduced rate compared with bipolar radio frequency and microwave.

CONCLUSIONS

Bipolar radio frequency and microwave ablative devices are more effective than thermal balloon and free fluid ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding with second generation endometrial ablation devices.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes from a randomised comparison of Microwave Endometrial Ablation with Thermal Balloon endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of microwave endometrial ablation and thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

DESIGN

A double blind randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

A UK teaching hospital.

POPULATION

Three hundred and twenty women requesting endometrial ablation.

METHODS

Operative data collection and patient completed postal questionnaires were used to ascertain women's satisfaction with outcome, acceptability of each procedure, changes in menstrual symptoms and health related quality of life and additional treatments received.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were satisfaction and menstrual scores 1 year. Secondary outcomes were operative differences, acceptability of treatment and changes in health related quality of life.

RESULTS

Both technologies achieved high levels of satisfaction (-1%, 95% CI (-11, 9)). Menstrual scores were also similar (4%, 95% CI (-7, 19)) Microwave had a significantly shorter operating time, reduced usage of antiemetics and opiate analgesia, increased discharge by 6 hours and fewer device failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments are acceptable to women, with high levels of satisfaction. Microwave is quicker to perform with faster hospital discharge.

Patient satisfaction with thermal balloon ablation for treatment of menorrhagia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether satisfaction in women who have undergone the thermal balloon ablation (TBA) procedure for menorrhagia at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center is consistent with initial published studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Two hundred sixteen patients were mailed a survey regarding patient satisfaction, postoperative bleeding patterns, and need for additional surgery. The follow-up interval was 13-60 months.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 88%. Eighty-nine percent of women were satisfied with the results of their procedure. After 3-5 years, 37% of women reported amenorrhea and 44% reported minimal/light bleeding. Only 9% of women eventually required hysterectomy.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms a patient satisfaction rate in our institution that is consistent with initial published studies.

A survey of preferences and practices of endometrial ablation/resection for menorrhagia in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

To survey the preferences and variations in the current use of first- and second-generation endometrial ablative techniques for menorrhagia among the consultant gynecologists in the United Kingdom, given the call for further studies to systematically compare the clinical effectiveness of the various endometrial ablation techniques.

DESIGN

Postal questionnaire survey.

POPULATION

One thousand, four hundred sixty consultant gynecologists in the United Kingdom.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Preferred endometrial ablation/resection method and variations in the current practices.

RESULT(S)

Six hundred ten (41%) consultants responded. Of these, 449 (73%) performed endometrial ablation/resection. Thermal balloon ablation (32.1%) was the preferred method, followed by microwave endometrial ablation (29.8%), transcervical resection of the endometrial alone or combined with roller ball diathermy (18.5%), Novasure (9.8%), hydrotherm ablation (6.9%), roller ball (2%), and laser (0.9%). Patient response to treatment was assessed using clinical history (64.3%), menstrual calendar (7.6%), clinical history and menstrual calendar (21.3%), questionnaires (5.8%), and pictorial blood loss assessment charts (0.4%). A total of 52.2% used gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues preoperatively. Variations in techniques for transcervical resection of the endometrial included methods used to treat the uterine fundus and cornuae, fluid management, and operating pressures.

CONCLUSION(S)

Second-generation endometrial ablation devices were preferred to first-generation devices for the management of menorrhagia. Thermal balloon ablation was the most preferred method. However, variations in surgical practices will make assessment of clinical efficacy a challenge.

Second-generation endometrial ablation technologies: the hot liquid balloons

Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation (HEA) was introduced in the 1980s to treat menorrhagia. Its use required additional training, surgical expertise and specialized equipment to minimize emergent complications such as uterine perforations, thermal injuries and excessive fluid absorption. To overcome these difficulties and concerns, thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) was introduced in the 1990s. Four hot liquid balloons have been introduced into clinical practice. All systems consist of a catheter (4-10mm diameter), a silicone balloon and a control unit. Liquids used to inflate the balloons include internally heated dextrose in water (ThermaChoice, 87 degrees C), and externally heated glycine (Cavaterm, 78 degrees C), saline (Menotreat, 85 degrees ) and glycerine (Thermablate, 173 degrees C). All balloons require pressurization from 160 to 240 mmHg for treatment cycles of 2 to 10 minutes. Prior to TBEA, preoperative endometrial thinning, including suction curettage, is optional. Several RCTs and cohort studies indicate that the advantages of TBEA include portability, ease of use and short learning curve. In addition, small diameter catheters requiring minimal cervical dilatation (5-7 mm) and short duration of treatment cycles (2-8 min) allow treatment under minimal analgesia/anesthesia requirements in a clinic setting. Following TBEA serious adverse events, including thermal injuries to viscera have been experienced. To minimize such injuries some surgeons advocate the use of routine post-dilatation hysteroscopy and/or ultrasonography to confirm correct intrauterine placement of the balloon prior to initiating the treatment cycle. After 10 years of clinical practice, TBEA is thought to be the preferred first-line surgical treatment of menorrhagia in appropriately selected candidates. Economic modeling also suggested that TBEA may be more cost-effective than HEA.

Thermal balloon endometrial ablation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to review the role of thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) as an alternative in treating abnormal uterine bleeding.

METHODS

Articles relevant to our review and relevant references from the initially identified articles on the field that were archived by May 2007, were retrieved from Pubmed.

RESULTS

Success rates ranged from 83 up to 94%, with patient's satisfaction ranging from 57 up to 94%. Persisted menorrhagia could reach 17% in some studies.

CONCLUSION

TBEA is an effective alternative method used in the treatment of menorrhagea which results in a significant reduction in menstrual bleeding and high satisfaction rates. However, a longer follow-up is required to determine the role of such a treatment.

Global endometrial ablation: a modern day solution to an age-old problem

Menorrhagia remains a significant health issue for women worldwide. Traditionally hysterectomy has been the treatment of choice when excessive menstrual bleeding remains unresolved by hormonal manipulation. In an attempt to provide a less invasive alternative to hysterectomy, traditional techniques such as rollerball endometrial ablation were developed 20 years ago. Although extremely effective, they possessed the potential of significant intra-operative risks and their success depended on high technical proficiency of the surgeon. As surgery and technology evolved, second generation endometrial ablation devices were developed which demonstrated improved safety and efficacy rates that paralleled traditional treatments. Since 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved five such devices for use in the United States. Each possesses a unique technology profile with supporting level I evidence that allows for the treatment of a wide variety of uterine anatomy.

Endometrial Ablation: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?

Endometrial ablation (EA) is targeted destruction of the endothelial surface of the uterine cavity. The procedure was originally designed as a less invasive alternative to hysterectomy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding unrelated to structural pathology of the uterus, that was not responsive to medical therapy. More recently it has become apparent that the procedure can be performed in the presence of submucous leiomyomas, providing they meet a number of size and location criteria. The first EA serie as published in Germany in the 1930s, but the procedure did not attract much attention until the latter part of the 20th century. Currently, EA can be performed under endoscopic direction with the neodymium:yttrium alumnum garnet laser, with a radiofrequency resectoscope, or with an expanding array of nonresectoscopic EA systems. It is apparent that most but not all of the complications associated with resectoscopic endometrial ablation are eliminated with nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, but serious morbidity has been reported with all of the newer systems to date. Success and patient satisfaction seem to be enduring in the majority of well-selected patients treated in clinical trials, but repeat surgery, usually hysterectomy, is performed in 25% to 40% by 5 years after surgery. Increased efficiencies should be realized if the procedure could be moved to an office setting.

Managing drug-resistant essential menorrhagia without hysterectomy

Menorrhagia is a common disorder that requires plenty of resources. Rapid developments in medical technology have resulted in new management strategies, which are true alternatives to hysterectomy. In many countries the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial destruction techniques are available for menorrhagia. Clinicians must answer questions about cost, effectiveness and quality of medical care when choosing the treatment option. This review integrates the results from the latest studies and review articles about LNG-IUS and endometrial destruction techniques by addressing the key clinical issues in menorrhagia. Both LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation seem to be good and effective alternative options to hysterectomy. Although these treatments have relatively high failure rates, the majority of women are satisfied and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments are better than that of hysterectomy. Both treatments have their advantages and disadvantages. Thus far LNG-IUS seems to be more cost-effective than endometrial resection or hysterectomy at 5 years follow-up. However, second generation ablation techniques may offer better cost-effectiveness than the first generation techniques, but the evidence is insufficient.

Long-term efficacy of transcervical endometrial resection with no preoperative hormonal preparation

OBJECTIVE

To assess the level of patient satisfaction after transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with no preoperative hormonal preparation.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective audit of a continuous case series was accomplished on 131 consecutive patients who underwent TCRE for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Data of postal questionnaires were analysed and subjected to survival analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three cases were lost to follow-up; thus, the data on 98 of the 131 (74.8%) patients were analysed. The average follow-up period was 94.8 months (60-132). Twenty (20.4%) women required D&C and 15 (15.3%) had hysterectomy. In eight of the 15 cases, the indication for hysterectomy was not related with the primary operation. The chance of avoiding hysterectomy reached a plateau after 72 months, at 78.3% (SE: 5.05%). The chance of avoiding D&C at up to 36 months was 98.6% (SE: 1.4%), and reached a plateau after 107 months at 67.11% (SE: 6.1%); 55.8% of the patients became amenorrhoeic, the remaining cases reporting good improvements in the amount and duration of bleeding, and dysmenorrhoea. Eighty-six of the 98 patients (88%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the result.

CONCLUSIONS

TCRE affords reasonable long-term effectiveness in the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding, even without any preoperative hormonal endometrial preparation.

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.

Thermal ablation performed in a primary care setting: the South Warwickshire Experience

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of performing outpatient thermal ablation in a primary care setting.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

A small peripheral hospital in the UK used by local general practitioners and visiting hospital practitioners for its outpatient facilities.

POPULATION

The area of South Warwickshire serves a population of 270,000.

METHODS

Two general practitioners were trained to perform outpatient thermal ablation using the Thermachoice thermal ablation system (Thermachoice II). The unit functioned autonomously with support from a local gynaecologist and radiologist, accepting referrals from hospital consultants and general practitioners.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Severity of menstrual loss, premenstrual symptoms, dysmenorrhoea and quality of life assessed by visual analogue scales before treatment and at one month, two months, one year and two years.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven women were treated. No major complications were encountered from the procedure. Reduction of menstrual loss or cure was reported by over 94% of women. Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and symptoms of dysmenorrhoea were also improved by treatment. The majority of women were satisfied with the operation at one month (96%), two months (93%), one year (92%) and two years (94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Thermal ablation is a simple procedure well suited to an outpatient setting. There are few complications as a result of the use of the thermal ablation catheters, and this study has shown that the procedure can be undertaken in a primary care setting with excellent results.