Long-term Follow-up After Endometrial Ablation in Finland: Cancer Risks and Later Hysterectomies

A 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs bipolar radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding has a substantial impact on professional, physical, and social functioning. In 2021, results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation as treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding were published. Both treatment strategies were equally effective in treating heavy menstrual bleeding during 2-year follow-up. However, long-term results are also relevant for both patients and healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess long-term differences in reintervention risk and menstrual blood loss in women with the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding treated according to a strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a long-term follow-up study of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (MIRA trial), in which women were allocated to either a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (n=132) or radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (n=138). Women from the original trial were contacted to fill out 6 questionnaires. The primary outcome was the reintervention rate after allocated treatment. Secondary outcomes included surgical reintervention rate, menstrual bleeding measured by the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, (disease-specific) quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

From the 270 women who were randomized in the original trial, 196 (52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group: n=94; radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group: n=102) participated in this long-term follow-up study. Mean follow-up duration was 7.4 years (range, 6-9 years). The cumulative reintervention rate (including both medical and surgical reinterventions) was 40.0% (34/85) in the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 28.7% (27/94) in the radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group (relative risk, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.10). The cumulative rate of surgical reinterventions only was significantly higher among patients with a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared with radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (35.3% [30/85] vs 19.1% [18/94]; relative risk, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.10). However, the hysterectomy rate was similar (11.8% [10/94] in the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 18.1% [17/102] in the radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group; relative risk, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.34). Most reinterventions occurred during the first 24 months of follow-up. A total of 171 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores showed a median bleeding score of 0.0. No clinically relevant differences were found regarding quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The overall risk of reintervention after long-term follow-up was not different between women treated according to a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and those treated using a strategy starting with radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation. However, women allocated to a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had a higher risk of surgical reintervention, which was driven by an increase in subsequent endometrial ablation. Both treatment strategies were effective in lowering menstrual blood loss over the long term. The results of this long-term follow-up study can support physicians in optimizing the counseling of women with heavy menstrual bleeding, thus promoting informed decision-making regarding choice of treatment.

Evaluation of Radiofrequency Endometrial Ablation: A 17-year Canadian Experience

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to better elucidate radiofrequency endometrial ablation (REA) durability by assessing the probability of failure as defined by need for postablation hysterectomy. Age at index REA, duration from REA until hysterectomy, and REA failure (REAF) risk factors were analyzed.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patient data between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2019. REAF cases were identified using operative procedure codes. Cox proportional hazard regression assessed the effect of age at index REA on time to postablation hysterectomy. Kaplan-Meier survival curve evaluated timing of postablation hysterectomy, stratified by age at index REA.

SETTING

This study was conducted at Regina General Hospital in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

PATIENTS

Patient population included those who were 21 years of age or older, were premenopausal, and had a history of heavy menstrual bleeding at the time of REA.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention under investigation was REA.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The overall probability of postablation hysterectomy was 22.6%. The probabilities of postablation hysterectomy were 36.1% for women younger than 30 years (n = 128), 28% for women 30 to 34.9 years old (n = 528), 29.6% for women 35 to 39.9 years old (n = 1152), and 17.6% for women 40 years and older (n = 2221). Characteristics associated with REAF included tubal occlusion, cesarean section, dysmenorrhea, and chronic pelvic pain (p <.01) among women younger than 40 years. Leiomyomas accounted for higher failure rates in women 40 years and older (p <.01).

CONCLUSION

Postablation hysterectomy is more likely to occur in women younger than 40 years. REA can be considered in women aged 30 to 39.9 years old, who have no known REAF risk factors. Women younger than 40 years with REAF risk factors will experience higher rates of hysterectomy. Thus, the decision to proceed with REA should be individualized with careful consideration for the underlying causes of abnormal uterine bleeding, while respecting patient autonomy.

Time to Hysterectomy After Transcervical Resection of the Endometrium Based on Age: A Retrospective Cohort Review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of hysterectomy over time after transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) based on age.

DESIGN

Retrospective audit.

SETTING

A single gynecology clinic in regional Victoria, Australia.

PATIENTS

A total of 1078 patients who had undergone TCRE for abnormal uterine bleeding.

INTERVENTIONS

The likelihood of hysterectomy was compared across age groups using the chi-square test. Time to hysterectomy was summarized as a median with the 25th and 75th percentiles and compared across age groups using the Kaplan-Meier plot (log-rank test) and Cox proportional hazards regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The overall rate of hysterectomy was 24.2% (261 of 1078, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21.7-26.9). When age was categorized into <40 years, 40 to 44 years, 45 to 49 years, and >50 years, the rate of hysterectomy after TCRE was 32.3% (70 of 217), 29.5% (93 of 315), 19.6% (73 of 372), and 14.4% (25 of 174), respectively (p <.001). The likelihood of hysterectomy at any time point after TCRE among those aged 45 to 49 years and older than 50 years was 43% and 59% lower, respectively, than patients under 40 years (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80, and hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65, respectively). The median time to hysterectomy was 1.68 years (25th to 75th percentiles, 0.77-3.76).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that patients who underwent a TCRE before the age of 45 years had a higher chance of having a hysterectomy than patients older than 45 years. This information will enable clinicians to inform patients of their chance of undergoing a hysterectomy at any time after TCRE.

Hysteroscopic Endometrial Ablation: From Indications to Instrumentation and Techniques-A Call to Action

The development of minimally invasive techniques has led to the creation of innovative alternatives in cases where traditional methods are not applicable. In modern gynecology, hysteroscopy has become the gold standard for the evaluation and treatment of intrauterine pathology. Endometrial ablation (EA) is a procedure that uses different types of energy to destroy the endometrium and is currently used as an alternative technique in cases of heavy menstrual bleeding when medical treatment has failed and uterine preservation is desired. The aim of this review was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of hysteroscopic EA as an alternative in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. A detailed computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library), from 1994 to June 2022, to evaluate the outcomes in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) undergoing EA using hysteroscopic and non-hysteroscopic techniques. Only scientific publications in English were included. Twelve articles on the current use of endometrial ablation were included. Data on patient symptoms, tools used for EA, primary outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. EA should be considered an effective and safe approach in the management of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding caused by benign pathology, in whom medical treatment has failed or is contraindicated. Due to the lack of evidence, it would be interesting to determine whether EA would also have a role in the treatment of women with premalignant lesions, avoiding invasive surgical procedures or medical treatment in those patients for whom hysterectomy or the use of hormonal treatment is contraindicated.

Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a previously performed endometrial ablation is associated with the development and diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

METHODS

First, a systematic review was performed of the articles reporting the incidence of endometrial cancer in patients treated with endometrial ablation. Second, a systematic review was performed to identify all individual cases of endometrial cancer after ablation to evaluate presenting symptoms, diagnostic work-up, potential risk factors, and the type and stage of the endometrial cancer. A systematic search was performed, using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, from inception through February 24, 2022.

RESULTS

Based on 11 included studies, the incidence of endometrial cancer in a population of 29 102 patients with a prior endometrial ablation ranged from 0.0% to 1.6%.A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after ablation were identified. In 71% of cases (17 of 24 cases), vaginal bleeding was the first presenting symptom. With transvaginal ultrasound it was possible to identify and measure the endometrial thickness in eight cases. Endometrium sampling was successful in 16 of 18 described cases (89%). In 18 of 20 cases (90%) pathologic examination showed early-stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I).

CONCLUSION

Previous endometrial ablation is not associated with the development of endometrial cancer. Diagnostic work-up is not impeded by previous endometrial ablation. In addition, endometrial cancers after endometrial ablation are not detected at an advanced stage.

Quality of Life, Anxiety and Depression in Women Treated with Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection or Ablation for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives: Hysteroscopic endometrial resection (ER) or global endometrial ablation (GEA) are feasible methods to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess patient's quality of life (QoL) in women treated with ER/GEA compared to hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches in MEDLINE Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PROSPERO and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted from their inception to July 2022. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of premenopausal women with HMB randomized to conservative surgical treatment (ER/GEA) or hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the evaluation of QoL using the SF-36 score. Results: Twelve RCTs (2773 women) were included in the analysis. Women treated with hysteroscopic ER/GEA showed significantly lower scores for the SF-36 general health perception (mean difference (MD) -8.56 [95% CI -11.75 to -5.36]; I2 = 0%), social function (MD -12.90 [95% CI -23.90 to -1.68]; I2 = 91%), emotional role limitation (MD -4.64 [95% CI -8.43 to -0.85]; I2 = 0%) and vitality (MD -8.01 [95% CI -14.73 to -1.30]; I2 = 74%) domains relative to hysterectomy. Anxiety, depression scores and complication rates were similar between treatments. Relative to uterine balloon therapy, amenorrhea was more common with EA/GER (relative risk 1.51 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.20] I2 = 28%), but posttreatment satisfaction was similar. Conclusions: Women's perception of QoL might be seen to be less improved after hysteroscopic ER/GEA rather than hysterectomy. However, such findings need to be confirmed by additional trials due to the high number of outdated studies and recent improvements in hysteroscopic instrumentation and techniques.

Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: A population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive methods to reduce menorrhagia were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. Transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) and endometrial ablation (EA) are two of the most frequently used methods. As none of them can guarantee a complete removal of the endometrium, there are concerns that the remaining endometrium may develop to endometrial cancer (EC) later in life. The primary aim was to analyze the long-term incidence of EC after TCRE and EA in a nationwide population. The secondary aim was to assess the two treatment modalities separately.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Swedish National Patient Registry and National Quality Registry for Gynecological Surgery were used for identification of women who had TCRE or EA performed between 1997-2017. The cohort was followed from the first TCRE or EA until hysterectomy, diagnosis of EC, or death. Follow-up data were retrieved from the National Cancer Registry and the National Death Registry. Expected incidence for EC in Swedish women was calculated using Swedish data retrieved from the NORDCAN project after having taken into account differences of age and follow-up time. Cumulative incidence of EC after TCRE and EA, was calculated. A standardized incidence ratio was calculated based on the expected and observed incidence, stratified by age and year of diagnosis.

RESULTS

In total, 17 296 women (mean age 45.1 years) underwent TCRE (n = 8626) or EA (n = 8670). Excluded were 3121 who had a hysterectomy for benign causes during follow up. During a median follow-up time of 7.1 years (interquartile range 3.1-13.3 years) the numbers of EC were 25 (0.3%) after TCRE and 2 (0.02%) after EA, respectively. The observed incidence was significantly lower than expected (population-based estimate) after EA but not after TCRE, giving a standardized incidence ratio of 0.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.53) after EA and 1.27 (95% CI 0.86-1.88) after TCRE. Median times to EC were 3.0 and 8.3 years after TCRE and EA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant reduction of EC after EA, suggesting a protective effect, whereas endometrial resection showed an incidence within the expected rate.

[Guidelines for Clinical Practice of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021: Prophylactic procedures associated with gynecologic surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To draw up recommendations on the use of prophylactic gynecologic procedures during surgery for other indications.

DESIGN

A consensus panel of 19 experts was convened. A formal conflict of interest policy was established at the onset of the process and applied throughout. The entire study was performed independently without funding from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers. The panel applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system to evaluate the quality of evidence on which the recommendations were based. The authors were advised against making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence. Some recommendations were ungraded.

METHODS

The panel studied 22 key questions on seven prophylactic procedures: 1) salpingectomy, 2) fimbriectomy, 3) salpingo-oophorectomy, 4) ablation of peritoneal endometriosis, 5) adhesiolysis, 6) endometrial excision or ablation, and 7) cervical ablation.

RESULTS

The literature search and application of the GRADE system resulted in 34 recommendations. Six were supported by high-quality evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 28 by low-quality evidence (GRADE 2+/-). Recommendations on two questions were left ungraded due to a lack of evidence in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of consensus was achieved among the experts regarding the use of prophylactic gynecologic procedures. The ensuing recommendations should result in improved current practice.

In which cases should endometrial destruction be performed during an operative hysteroscopy? Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning the impact of endometrial destruction on bleeding and endometrial cancer risk reduction in patients candidates for operative hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Recommendations were made according to AGREE II and the GRADE® (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) systems to determine separately the quality of evidence (QE) and in the level of recommendation.

RESULTS

In a retrospective study comparing the incidence of endometrial cancer in 4776 patients with menorrhagia treated with endometrial destruction vs 229 945 patients with a medical treatment. There was a non-significant reduced risk of developing endometrial cancer (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.15-1.40; p = .17). In premenopausal women, five studies compared the incidence of endometrial cancer in patients treated with endometrial ablation/destruction (EA/D) to the incidence of endometrial cancer in a comparable population of women from national registers, all of which show reduced risk of endometrial cancer after endometrectomy. In case of menopausal metrorrhagia, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 9%, by analogy with the results found in premenopausal patients, the combination of endometrial ablation during operative hysteroscopy seems justified. In a retrospective cohort of 177 non-menopausal patients treated with myomectomy for metrorrhagia and/or menorrhagia, a significantly better control of bleeding at 12 months was found when myomectomy was combined with endometrectomy using roller-ball (OR: 0.18 [95% Cl 0.05-0.63]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

In premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding, when an operative hysteroscopy is performed, it is recommended to propose an endometrial ablation/destruction in order to prevent the risk of endometrial cancer, (QE3) and to prevent recurrence of bleeding (QE2). In menopausal women, it is probably recommended to also perform an endometrial ablation/destruction in case of operative hysteroscopy in order to prevent the risk of endometrial cancer (QE1).

Water Vapor Endometrial Ablation for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: 36-Month Follow-Up of a Prospective, Multicenter Pivotal Clinical Trial

Study Objective

To report 36-month follow-up of a pivotal trial that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the AEGEA Water Vapor System for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) secondary to Abnormal Uterine Bleeding due to Endometrial disorders or Leiomyomata (AUB-E and AUB-L).

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial at 14 sites in the US, Canada, Mexico, and the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria included a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment (PBLAC, Higham) score ≥150 and allowed treatment of subjects with leiomyomata classified by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Types 2–6 up to 4 cm in diameter, a uterine cavity up to 12 cm in length (uterine sound), Essure^® contraceptive inserts and/or prior cesarean section. Follow-up assessments were conducted annually up to 36 months after endometrial ablation. The following outcomes were evaluated for 125/155 women: gynecological adverse events, qualitative assessment of menstrual flow, quality of life using the Menorrhagia Impact Questionnaire (MIQ), patient satisfaction, and medical or surgical reintervention for AUB.

Results

One hundred and fifty-five premenopausal women aged 30 to 50 years were enrolled from September 2014 through May 2015. Water vapor endometrial ablation was performed under varying anesthesia/sedation regimens in offices, surgical centers and operating rooms. There were 6 procedure-related adverse events that occurred between 12- and 36-month follow-up, 1 of which was deemed serious (hematometra managed successfully hysteroscopically). Seventy-two percent reported amenorrhea or light menstrual flow. The mean quality of life (MIQ) score improved from 14.7 at baseline to 6.4. Ninety-three percent reported “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” Post-ablation hysterectomy for any indication was performed in 6.5% of patients, and the total rate of re-intervention for bleeding was 7.1%.

Conclusion

Outcomes 36-months after water vapor endometrial ablation for HMB are consistent with 12- and 24-month follow-up results in all subgroups evaluated. The AEGEA Water Vapor System increases the population of patients amenable to efficacious and acceptable treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB) due to Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB-E,-L). CinicalTrials.gov NCT01979861 registered November 8, 2013.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB.

DESIGN

A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure.

SETTING

Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork.

INTERVENTIONS

LASH compared with second-generation EA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure.

FUTURE WORK

Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness.

TRIAI REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-term outcome of endometrial ablation therapy with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of endometrial ablation (EA) therapy with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

Material and Methods

The retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on 209 patients who referred to Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd, Iran between March 2010 and September 2017 with AUB undergoing EA therapy. The data was collected by a questionnaire from the medical records of patients and phone call. The primary and secondary outcomes post EA therapy (from six months to seven years post-operatively) were assessed in patients.

Results

The mean age of participants was 45.9±5.9 years and the mean follow-up duration was 21.2±13.2 months. The rate of treatment response was 95% in the first six months and 92.1% thereafter. The prevalence of amenorrhea was 41.2%. The patient satisfaction rate at the end of follow-up duration was 81.3%. Dysmenorrhea completely resolved in 32.6%. Moreover, 1.4% of patients became pregnant during follow-up. By the end of follow-up, four (1.9%) patients had a hysterectomy due directly to treatment failure.

Conclusion

This study showed that EA surgery with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon was an effective treatment for AUB. The procedure was safe and was associated with a very low rate of postoperative adverse events. The patient satisfaction rate was favorable.

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 ablation; less is more? Historical cohort study comparing long-term outcomes from two time periods and two treatment modalities for 854 women

Background

Abnormal uterine bleeding needs surgical treatment if medical therapy fails. After introduction of non-hysteroscopic endometrial ablation as alternative to hysteroscopic endometrial resection, we aimed to compare short and long-term outcomes for women treated with these two minimally-invasive procedures. A secondary goal was comparing the present cohort to a previous cohort of women treated with hysteroscopic resection only.

Materials and methods

Historical cohort study of women treated for abnormal uterine bleeding with hysteroscopic resection or endometrial ablation at Haukeland University Hospital during 2006–2014. Similar patient file and patient-reported outcome data were collected from 386 hysteroscopic resections in a previous cohort (1992–1998). Categorical variables were compared by Chi-square or Fisher´s Exact-test, linear variables by Mann-Whitney U-test and time to hysterectomy by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

During 2006–2014, 772 women were treated with endometrial resection or ablation, 468 women (61%) consented to study-inclusion; 333 women (71%) were treated with hysteroscopic resection and 135 (29%) with endometrial ablation.

Preoperative characteristics were significantly different for women treated with hysteroscopic resection compared to endometrial ablation in the 2006-2014-cohort and between the two time-cohorts regarding menopausal, sterilization and myoma status (p≤0.036). The endometrial ablation group had significantly shorter operation time, median 13 minutes (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 12–14) and a lower complication rate (2%) versus operation time, median 25 minutes (95% CI 23–26) and complication rate (13%) in the hysteroscopy group, all p ≤0.001. The patient-reported rate of satisfaction with treatment was equivalent in both groups (85%, p = 0.955). The endometrial ablation group had lower hysterectomy rate (8% vs 16%, p = 0.024). Patient-reported satisfaction rate was higher (85%) in the 2006-2014-cohort compared with the 1992-1998-cohort (73%), p<0.001.

Conclusions

Endometrial ablation has similar patient satisfaction rate, but shorter operation time and lower complication rate and may be a good alternative to hysteroscopic resection for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding.

Endometrial Ablation

The destruction of the endometrium in women with heavy menstrual bleeding has been used for well over a century, and the various techniques of delivering forms of thermal energy have been modified over the years to ensure a safe and effective treatment approach. Today, 6 nonresectoscopic devices are approved for use in the United States in addition to resectoscopic techniques that rely on the skillful use of the operative hysteroscope. Regardless of the technique used, endometrial ablation uniformly reduces menstrual blood loss, improves general and menstrual-related quality of life, and prevents hysterectomy in 4 of 5 women who undergo the procedure. When patients are appropriately selected, outcomes are optimized, and risks of serious complications are minimized. This article reviews the literature with singular reference to nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation procedures including historical background, appropriate patient selection, clinical outcomes data, complications, and special or unique considerations.