Five-year follow-up of endometrial ablation: endometrial coagulation versus endometrial resection. Randomised trial of hysterectomy, endometrial laser ablation, and transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. A pragmatic randomised comparison of transcervical resection of the endometrium with endometrial laser ablation for the treatment of menorrhagia. Hysterectomy compared with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Cavaterm thermal balloon endometrial ablation versus hysteroscopic endometrial resection to treat menorrhagia: the French, multicenter, randomized study. Hysteroscopic endometrial resection versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for menorrhagia: a prospective randomized trial. Comparison of microwave endometrial ablation and transcervical resection of the endometrium for treatment of heavy menstrual loss: a randomised trial. Comparison of the long-term histopathologic and morphologic changes after endometrial rollerball ablation and resection: a prospective randomized trial. A randomised trial comparing endometrial resection and abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of menorrhagia.
A randomized, controlled trial was performed to compare the patient complication rate, effectiveness, and satisfaction rate of transcervical hysteroscopic endometrial coagulation versus endometrial resection in the treatment for heavy dysfunctional bleeding.
                One hundred and twenty women requiring endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy bleeding disorders entered the study. All patients were offered a clinical examination 24 months postoperatively and had a questionnaire by mail 5 years after the initial treatment. The number of complications during and after the operation, re-ablations, and hysterectomies were registered. A bleeding index and the patient satisfaction rate were stated.
                Sixty-one patients were treated by endometrial coagulation, and 59 were treated by endometrial resection. No differences between the two groups were observed concerning fluid absorption, bleeding, perforation, and infection. At the 5-year follow-up, 64% of the patients had only one ablation, 15% were treated twice, 15% had a hysterectomy, and 6% were lost to follow-up. After 5 years, the bleeding index was halved in patients with menses. Seventy-nine percent of the women would recommend the treatment to their best female friend.
                We found no significant differences in the frequency of complications. Only 15% of the women had a hysterectomy after 5 years. No significant difference was observed with respect to bleeding reduction and patient satisfaction in the two groups. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endometrial laser ablation and transcervical resection of the endometrium compared with hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding.
                Prospective randomised controlled trial.
                Gynaecology department of a large teaching hospital.
                204 women who would otherwise have been undergoing hysterectomy for menorrhagia were recruited between August 1990 and March 1992 and randomly allocated to hysterectomy (n = 99) or conservative (hysteroscopic) surgery (transcervical resection (n = 52) and laser ablation (n = 53)).
                Operative complications, postoperative recovery, relief of menstrual and other symptoms, patient satisfaction with treatment after six and 12 months.
                Women treated by hysteroscopic surgery had less early morbidity and a significantly shorter recovery period than those treated by hysterectomy (median time to full recovery 2-4 weeks v 2-3 months, P < 0.001). Twelve months later 17 women in the hysteroscopy group had had a hysterectomy, 11 for continuing symptoms; 11 women had had a repeat hysteroscopic procedure; 45 were amenorrhoeic or had only a brown discharge; and 35 had light periods. Dysmenorrhoea and premenstrual symptoms improved in most women in both groups. After 12 months 89% (79/89) in the hysterectomy group and 78% (75/96) in the hysteroscopy group were very satisfied with the effect of surgery (P < 0.05); 95% (85/89) and 90% (86/96) thought that there had been an acceptable improvement in symptoms, and 72% (64/89) and 71% (68/96) would recommend the same operation to others.
                Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation was superior to hysterectomy in terms of operative complications and postoperative recovery. Satisfaction after hysterectomy was significantly higher, but between 70% and 90% of the women were satisfied with the outcome of hysteroscopic surgery. Hysteroscopic surgery can be recommended as an alternative to hysterectomy for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. To compare endometrial laser ablation (ELA) with transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) in the treatment of menorrhagia.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Gynaecology department of a large teaching hospital.
                Women with menorrhagia due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding (n = 372) were randomly allocated to ELA (n = 188) or TCRE (n = 184).
                Operative complications, post-operative recovery, relief of menstrual and other symptoms, need for further surgical treatment, satisfaction with treatment after 6 and 12 months, and differential resource use.
                TCRE was significantly quicker, with lower rates of fluid overload. Perioperative morbidity was low and similar in both groups. Outcome at 12 months was also similar: 72 women (45%) had either amenorrhoea or brown discharge in the ELA group compared with 71 (49%) in the TCRE group; 79 (49%) versus 68 (46%) had lighter periods. Thirty (16%) versus 36 (20%) had received further surgical treatment: 9 (5%) compared with 25 (14%) had had a hysterectomy and 21 (11%) versus 11 (6%) had received repeat ablation. Anxiety and depression, dysmenorrhoea and pre-menstrual symptoms were improved by both procedures and bladder symptoms were affected by neither. At 12 months 148 (90%) women in the ELA group and 140 (91%) women in the TCRE group were satisfied with their treatment. The estimated additional cost of ELA was Pound 145 per procedure.
                At one year there was no clear difference in clinical outcome between ELA and TCRE. Both procedures were associated with low morbidity. ELA was the more costly procedure. Despite the need for further surgery for about one in six women, satisfaction rates were high following both ELA and TCRE. To compare the effectiveness of hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding.
                The Surgical Treatments Outcomes Project for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Eligible women were premenopausal with dysfunctional uterine bleeding and aged 18 years or older. Primary outcomes were problems that led the woman to seek care solved, bleeding, pain, and fatigue at 12 months. Additional outcomes included quality of life, adverse events, reoperation, and others at 24 months and up to 5 years.
                We randomly assigned 237 women between January 1998 and June 2001. Follow-up ended in June 2003. We completed 24 months of follow-up on 114 of 123 women assigned to endometrial ablation and 111 of 114 assigned to hysterectomy. Approximately 85% of women were aged younger than 45 years; 76.4% classified themselves as white, 18.6% as African American, less than 1% as Asian, 4.6% as American Indian, and 8.4% as Hispanic (classification within more than one category possible). Both endometrial ablation and hysterectomy were effective at 24 months in solving the problem that led women to seek care (84.9% compared with 94.4%), and in relieving bleeding, pain, fatigue, and other symptoms, although hysterectomy was more effective for bleeding. By 48 months, 32 of the 110 women initially receiving endometrial ablation required reoperation. Adverse events were more frequent with hysterectomy.
                Both endometrial ablation and hysterectomy are effective treatments in women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Hysterectomy (as the index surgery) was associated with more adverse events and a substantial number of patients receiving endometrial ablation had reoperation.
                ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00114088
                I. To compare the efficacy and safety of Cavaterm thermal balloon endometrial ablation with hysteroscopic endometrial resection.
                Multicenter randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).
                Departments of obstetrics and gynecology in French university hospitals.
                Fifty-one women with menorrhagia unresponsive to medical treatment.
                Women were randomized to thermal destruction of the endometrium or to hysteroscopic endometrial resection. Women completed preoperative, 6-, and 12-month postoperative pictorial charts to determine Higham blood loss scores and a satisfaction questionnaire. Operative time, discharge time, complication rate, and resumption of normal activities were evaluated for each group.
                Amenorrhea rates were 36% (95% CI 19%-56%) and 29% (95% CI 8%-51%) in the Cavaterm and the endometrial resection groups at 12 months, respectively (ns). Both treatments significantly reduced uterine bleeding. The median decrease in Higham score at 12 months was significantly higher in women treated by Cavaterm (377, range 108-1300) than in women treated by resection (255, range -82 to 555) (p=.006). A subsequent hysterectomy for recurrent bleeding was performed in 2 women, both previously treated by resection. The rate of women reporting good or excellent satisfaction was 89% (95% CI 72%-98%) in the Cavaterm group and 79% (95% CI 54%-94%) in the resection group at 12 months. Discharge time was significantly lower in women treated by Cavaterm, although postoperative pain at 1 hour was higher. There were no major complications in either group.
                Cavaterm thermal balloon ablation was as effective as hysteroscopic endometrial resection to treat menorrhagia, both resulting in a significant reduction in menstrual blood loss and high patient satisfaction. This study was undertaken to compare the relative efficacy and safety of hysteroscopic endometrial resection and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy in the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding.
                One hundred eighty-one patients affected by menometrorrhagia and unresponsive to medical treatment agreed to be randomized to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or hysteroscopic endometrial ablation. They were monitored for 2 years to evaluate perioperative and postoperative outcomes, resolution of symptoms, and patient satisfaction.
                Duration of hospitalization, period of convalescence, perioperative complications, and resumption of normal activity were similar between the two groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the hysteroscopic group, but patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group.
                For the treatment of menorrhagia, hysterectomy has the distinct advantage of being curative but the disadvantage of being more invasive than the hysteroscopic approach. However, laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy preserves the curative effect of hysterectomy without its increased surgical invasiveness, as suggested by the current study. Various new endometrial ablation techniques have emerged for the treatment of menorrhagia. We undertook a randomised controlled trial comparing one new technique, microwave endometrial ablation (MEA), with a proven procedure, transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE), for women with heavy menstrual loss.
                263 eligible and consenting women, referred for endometrial ablative surgery, were randomly assigned MEA (Microsulis plc, Waterlooville, Hampshire, UK; n=129) or TCRE (n=134). 230 participants were needed to give 80% power of demonstrating a 15% difference in satisfaction with treatment. All procedures were done under general anaesthesia 5 weeks after endometrial thinning with goserelin 3.6 mg. Questionnaires were completed at recruitment and at 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome measures were patients' satisfaction with and the acceptability of treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat among women followed up to 12 months (n=116 MEA, n=124 TCRE).
                At 12 months, 89 (77%) women in the MEA group and 93 (75%) in the TCRE group were totally or generally satisfied with their treatment (95% CI for difference -12 to 17) and 109 (94%) versus 112 (90%) found it acceptable (-11 to 35). Mean operating times were shorter for MEA than for TCRE (11.4 vs 15.0 min, p=0.001) and the postoperative stay slightly but not significantly shorter. One blunt perforation occurred in each study group resulting in one immediate hysterectomy (TCRE group). Of eight health-related quality of life dimensions, all were improved after MEA (six significantly) and seven were improved after TCRE (all significantly).
                Both techniques achieved high rates of satisfaction and acceptability and both improved quality of life after 1 year. However, we cannot exclude a difference in satisfaction between the groups of less than 15%. MEA seems a suitable alternative to TCRE. To compare long-term histologic features of endometrial rollerball ablation versus resection.
                Randomized clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).
                Akdeniz University School of Medicine.
                Women with menorrhagia undergoing endometrial ablation.
                Comparison of patients with menorrhagia undergoing endometrial resection and ablation.
                Endometrial rollerball ablation (n = 23 women) and resection (n = 25) were followed by second-look office hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy. Mean follow-up to second look hysteroscopy after rollerball ablation and loop resection was 33.4 +/- 2.1 and 31.1 +/- 2.6 months, respectively. Complete atrophy and partial adhesion or obliteration of the cavity and fibrosis were observed at second-look hysteroscopy and were similar in both groups. Whereas all random biopsy specimens after both ablation and resection revealed diminished endometrial glands with varied necrosis and scarring, the number of endometrial glands per field was not correlated with amount of bleeding or menstrual pattern. Bleeding patterns were similar between the groups. No precancerous or malignant lesion was found after the procedures.
                Although efficacy of both endometrial ablation and resection is related to initial thermal destruction and correlated with postablation hysteroscopic and histologic findings, endometrial regrowth may be expected and is not a failure of ablation. Both procedures revealed histopathologically and clinically similar results. To determine the advantages and disadvantages of endometrial resection and abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of women with menorrhagia.
                Randomised study of two treatment groups with a minimum follow up of nine months.
                Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading.
                51 of 78 menorrhagic women without pelvic pathology who were on the waiting list for abdominal hysterectomy.
                Endometrial resection or abdominal hysterectomy (according to randomisation). Endometrial resections were performed by an experienced hysteroscopic surgeon; hysterectomies were performed by two other gynaecological surgeons.
                Length of operating time, hospitalisation, recovery; cost of surgery; short term results of endometrial resection.
                Operating time was shorter for endometrial resection (median 30 (range 20-47) minutes) than for hysterectomy (50 (39-74) minutes). The hospital stay for endometrial resection (median 1 (range 1-3) days) was less than for hysterectomy (7 (5-12) days). Recovery after endometrial resection (median 16 (range 5-62) days) was shorter than after hysterectomy (58 (11-125) days). The cost was 407 pounds for endometrial resection and 1270 pounds for abdominal hysterectomy. Four women (16%) who did not have an acceptable improvement in symptoms after endometrial resection had repeat resections. No woman has required hysterectomy during a mean follow up of one year.
                For women with menorrhagia who have no pelvic pathology endometrial resection is a useful alternative to abdominal hysterectomy, with many short term benefits. Larger numbers and a longer follow up are needed to estimate the incidence of complications and the long term efficacy of endometrial resection.
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 is associated with a longer operating time, a longer recovery period and higher rates of post-operative complications, it offers permanent relief from heavy menstrual bleeding. The initial cost of endometrial destruction is significantly lower than hysterectomy but, since re-treatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.