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

Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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 We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature, and reference lists of retrieved studies, and we made contact with experts in the field and with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Efficacy and safety of global endometrial ablation after cesarean delivery: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of global endometrial ablation in women with a history of cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a historical cohort study of patients who underwent endometrial ablation for menorrhagia between 1998 and 2005. Outcome measures included amenorrhea, treatment failure, and operative complications. Time to treatment failure was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk adjustments were performed using Cox and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 704 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 162 (23%) had a history of 1 or more cesarean deliveries. Women with and without a history of cesarean delivery had comparable rates for 5 year cumulative endometrial ablation failure, amenorrhea, treatment failure, and operative complications. The type of ablation device and number of previous cesarean deliveries did not affect any outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation are comparable in women with or without a history of cesarean delivery.

Endometrial ablation with the NovaSure system in Iran

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rate of response to treatment with the NovaSure endometrial ablation device among Iranian women with menorrhagia.

METHODS

Twenty 35-50-year-old women with menorrhagia who were referred to Arash Hospital, Tehran, Iran, in 2008 were enrolled. They underwent endometrial ablation via the NovaSure system and were followed-up for 2 years.

RESULTS

The incidence of amenorrhea was 30.0% at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Hypomenorrhea was reported by 40.0% of women. The mean number of days of bleeding per month decreased significantly, from 30.0 ± 6.4 days before treatment to 3.1 ± 2.6 days after 2 years (P < 0.001). The severity of bleeding decreased significantly within 2 years after treatment (P < 0.001). In total, 85.0% of women were satisfied and 90.0% had responded to treatment-as defined by amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, or return to normal menstruation.

CONCLUSION

The NovaSure system is effective and should be considered by gynecologists for the treatment of menorrhagia.

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.

Unmet therapeutic needs for uterine myomas

Uterine myomas may develop in many women, but only become clinically significant in about one third of the affected population. Although uterine myomas are most often benign, they are associated with debilitating symptoms and commonly result in hysterectomy. Current treatments for uterine myomas include pharmacologic therapies, delivery of focused energy, alteration of uterine vascular supply, or surgical procedures. Factors such as the woman's desire for future pregnancy, the importance of uterine preservation, symptom severity, and tumor characteristics direct the choice of therapeutic approach. The ideal treatment will have the following characteristics: easy to perform, minimally invasive, cost effective, preserves fertility, preserves the uterus, efficacious, acceptable tolerability and durability, and low incidence of myoma recurrence.

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.

Anesthesia for outpatient gynecologic surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia care for patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery has improved incrementally over the past few years. Emphasis has evolved beyond the safe provision of care, because this has largely been achieved. Comfort, speed, and efficiency have taken on new importance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many changes relate to improvements in non-narcotic analgesic techniques and use of various supralaryngeal airways, such as the ProSeal LMA. Also, use of depth of anesthesia monitors and administration of potent short-acting beta-blockers and narcotics to control hemodynamic variables are examples of new anesthesia developments well applied to ambulatory gynecologic cases. Finally, anesthesia care is changing in some instances because surgical techniques are advancing, such as hysteroscopy, and can now be done in an office with little or no anesthesia.

SUMMARY

Local anesthetic use in gynecologic laparoscopy appears to improve postoperative pain control modestly, especially when given into the peritoneal cavity. Supralaryngeal airways, such as ProSeal LMA, appear to provide effective ventilation in laparoscopy, although their ability to protect against aspiration is unclear. The speed and comfort of emergence, recovery, and discharge may be improved by consciousness monitoring during general anesthesia and by drugs intended to modulate hemodynamics.