Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection Versus Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

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.

Quality of Life in Women after Deep Endometriosis Surgery: Comparison with Spanish Standardized Values

The quality of life (QoL) of women who have been surgically treated for endometriosis may be severely impaired. Therefore, QoL can be a determining factor in the recovery of these patients. The aims of this study were to evaluate if the QoL of women surgically treated for deep endometriosis differs from a healthy age-matched population from Catalonia (Spain) and to analyze the QoL of these women considering concomitant events. This is an observational cross-sectional study, where 112 women (between 18 and 48 years old), with endometriosis treated by surgery at Hospital Universitario La Paz (Madrid, Spain), were enrolled to assess the QoL using the second version of the 12-item short form (SF-12) questionnaire. The QoL in these women were tested against a reference population of healthy women using a standardized one-sample comparison method. In addition, the QoL was compared according to the pathophysiology and type of surgery. In women with endometriosis, the physical health component, but not mental health component, was positively correlated with age (r = 0.19; p-Value = 0.048). In addition, physical (20.3 ± 29.2) and social functions (29.7 ± 38.3) and the overall physical health component (37.8 ± 19.4) were significantly lower than the reference population. On the contrary, the body pain (64.1 ± 41.2), emotional role (62.5 ± 42.2), mental health (54.4 ± 26.0), vitality (59.3 ± 31.2), and the overall mental health component (59.4 ± 26.6) had significantly higher scores than the reference. The anatomical compartment of endometriosis, reintervention, bowel nodule resection, and fertility preservation did not show statistical differences in QoL. Women with deep endometriosis had worse physical and social functions, and the overall physical health, compared to the norm in Spanish women. Bodily pain, emotional role, vitality, and the overall mental health improved. These areas could be considered protective factors in this disease. Considering the importance of QoL in adjustments in mental and physical health, it would be necessary to improve these areas of QoL in women surgically treated for deep endometriosis.

Hysteroscopic endometrial resection vs. hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding: impact on quality of life and sexuality. Evidence from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of hysterectomy and hysteroscopic endometrial resection in improving quality of life (QoL), sexual function and psychological wellbeing of women abnormal uterine bleeding.

RECENT FINDINGS

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase for original studies written in English (registered in PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019133632), using the terms 'endometrial ablation', 'endometrial destruction', 'endometrial resection', 'hysterectomy', 'menorrhagia', 'dysfunctional uterine bleeding', 'quality of life', 'sexuality' published up to April 2019. Our literature search produced 159 records. After exclusions, nine studies were included showing the following results: both types of treatment significantly improve QoL and psychological wellbeing; hysterectomy is associated with higher rates of satisfaction; hysterectomy is not associated with a significant deterioration in sexual function.

SUMMARY

Hysterectomy is currently more advantageous in terms of improving abnormal uterine bleeding and satisfaction rates than hysteroscopic endometrial destruction techniques. Furthermore, there is some evidence of a greater improvement in general health for women undergoing hysterectomy. However, high-quality prospective randomized controlled trials should be implemented to investigate the effectiveness of hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in the improvement of QoL outcomes in larger patient cohorts.

Systematic review, meta-analysis and statistical analysis of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy vs. endometrial ablation

Objective:

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with endometrial ablation (EA) in terms of general and menstrual-related quality of life in women opting for surgical treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding.

Material and Methods:

Sources searched included PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials. Main outcomes of interest included: quality of life assessed using medical outcomes survey short form-36 (SF-36), (SF-12), operation time, time from operation to discharge, pain, fever, and hemoglobin level. Screening and data extraction were performed independently and the analysis was conducted using Review Manager Software v5.4.1.

Results:

Four clinical trials were included. Results of SF-12 score showed that there was no significant difference between the LSH and EA groups for either mental or physical component score overall mean difference (MD): -4.15 (-16.01, 7.71; p=0.49) and MD: 2.67 (-0.37, 5.71; p=0.08), respectively. Subgroup analysis of the SF-36 showed that only two components, general health and social function, were significantly improved in the LSH group (p<0.01) while the other six sub-scores did not differ between groups. The overall MD significantly favored the EA group for: operation time [MD: 72.65 (35.48, 109.82; p=0.0001)], time from operation to discharge [MD: 13.61 (3.21, 24.01; p=0.01)], hemoglobin level outcome [MD: 0.57 (0.40, 0.74); p<0.01], and pain score [standardized MD: 0.46 (0.32, 0.60; p<0.01)].

Conclusion:

LSH has better outcomes for quality of life. This includes patient indicated responses to social health, general health, and superior hemoglobin levels at all measured points postoperatively. EA, however, was consistently associated with less operative time, a shorter hospital stay and is also considered by the authors to be a more minimally invasive technique which can also result in satisfying outcomes.

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.

Quality of Life after Hysterectomy and Uterus-Sparing Hysteroscopic Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding or Heavy Menstrual Bleeding

Study Objective:

To compare the effect on quality of life (QOL) of uterus-sparing hysteroscopic targeted therapy with that of hysterectomy as therapeutic surgical procedure for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

Methods/Methodology:

This was a prospective observational study.

Setting:

Endoscopy unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences Wardha, Maharashtra, India.

Patients:

A total of 354 women meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study, of which 178 women had undergone hysteroscopic targeted therapy while 176 women had undergone abdominal hysterectomy as surgical treatment for HMB.

Interventions:

Group I – Hysteroscopic surgical procedure – polypectomy, endometrial resection, myomectomy. Group II – Hysterectomy – abdominal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy.)

Results:

Health-related QOL assessed by Short Form 36 questionnaire response score was significantly better for women who underwent hysteroscopic targeted therapy was significantly better at both short-term and long-term follow-up.

Conclusions:

Both hysteroscopic procedures and hysterectomy when used as therapeutic modality for abnormal uterine bleeding/HMB (AUB/HMB) improve the quality of life when used as therapeutic option, and the improvement in QOL is significantly different at 6 months and 1 year while the improvement in QOL 1 week after surgery is better in hysteroscopy group when compared to hysterectomy group suggesting early improvement in QOL when hysteroscopic therapies are used as treatment modality for surgical management of HMB/AUB.

Systematic review of quality of life measures in patients with endometriosis

OBJECTIVES

Endometriosis and quality of life has been the subject of much research, however, there is little consensus on how best to evaluate quality of life in endometriosis, resulting in many and diverse scales being used. In our study, we aim to identify quality of life scales used in endometriosis, to review their strengths and weaknesses and to establish what would define an ideal scale in the evaluation of endometriosis-related quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English and French for the period from 1980 to February 2017, using the words 'endometriosis' and 'quality of life'. Publications were selected if they reported on quality of life in patients with endometriosis and specified use of a quality of life scale. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed in order to establish the strengths and weaknesses for each scale (systematic registration number: PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014014210).

RESULTS

A total of 1538 articles publications were initially identified. After exclusion of duplicates and application of inclusion criteria, 201 studies were selected for analysis. The SF-36, a generic HRQoL measure, was found to be the most frequently used scale, followed by the EHP-30, a measure specific to endometriosis. Both perform well, when compared with other scales, with scale weaknesses offset by strengths. EHP-5 and EQ-5D also showed to be of good quality. All four were the only scales to report on MCID studied in endometriosis patients.

CONCLUSION

For clinical practice, routine evaluation of HRQOL in women with endometriosis is essential both for health-care providers and patients. Both SF-36 and EHP-30 perform better overall with regard to their strengths and weaknesses when compared to other scales.