Guideline No. 453: Endometrial Ablation in the Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update of the current evidence-based guideline on the techniques and technologies used in endometrial ablation, a minimally invasive technique for the management of abnormal uterine bleeding of benign origin. TARGET POPULATION: Women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding and benign pathology with or without structural abnormalities. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Implementation of the guideline recommendations will improve the provision of endometrial ablation as an effective treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. Following these recommendations would allow the surgical procedure to be performed safely and maximize success for patients. EVIDENCE: The guideline was updated with published literature retrieved through searches of Medline and the Cochrane Library from January 2014 to April 2023, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords (endometrial ablation, hysteroscopy, menorrhagia, heavy menstrual bleeding, abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies written in English. Grey (unpublished) literature was retrieved from the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec (AOGQ) in 2023. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: Obstetricians, gynaecologists, and primary care providers. SOCIAL MEDIA ABSTRACT: This is an updated version of the 2015 SOGC Endometrial Ablation guideline. The authors discuss special considerations, update evidence, and make new fluid deficit recommendations. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Perioperative complications in women undergoing thermal balloon endometrial ablation after one or more cesarean deliveries.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether thermal ballon endometrial ablation can be safely performed after one or more cesarean sections. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study including all women who underwent thermal balloon endometrial ablation at the Kepler University Hospital, Austria, between November 2017 and December 2022. For the analysis of the study endpoints, the dataset was divided into two groups: women with at least one cesarean section, and women without a history of cesarean section. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Association was tested using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of the 361 women included, 29.3 % (n = 105) had at least one previous cesarean section. The association between intraoperative uterine rupture and previous cesarean section was not statistically significant (0 % vs. 1 %; p = 0.292). Only one uterine rupture was observed in the cesarean section group, which was located at the uterine fundus after a preoperatively unknown previous uterine perforation during IUD insertion. Secondary endpoints (overall complication rate, postoperative endometritis, vesicouterine fistula, different grades of Clavien-Dindo-classification) showed no significant associations either, even when considering the number of previous cesarean sections. The readmission rate to the clinic for bleeding disorders was 11.4 % in both groups (p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: Women who have had one or more prior cesarean sections with transverse isthmocervical hysterotomy do not appear to have an increased risk of complications in a subsequent thermal balloon endometrial ablation.

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

OBJECTIVE: First-generation and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA) techniques, along with medical treatment and invasive surgery, are considered successful lines of management for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). We set out to determine the efficacy of first and second-generation ablation techniques compared with medical treatment, invasive surgery and different modalities of the EA techniques themselves. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a frequentist network. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus for all published studies up to 1 March 2021 using relevant keywords. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared premenopausal women with AUB receiving the intervention of second-generation EA techniques. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 49 high-quality RCTs with 8038 women were included. We extracted and pooled the data and then analysed to estimate the network meta-analysis models within a frequentist framework. We used the random-effects model of the netmeta package in R (V.3.6.1) and the 'Meta-Insight' website. RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis showed many varying results according to specific outcomes. The uterine balloon ablation had significantly higher amenorrhoea rates than other techniques in both short (hydrothermal ablation (risk ratio (RR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.37; 0.72), microwave ablation (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.31; 0.59), first-generation techniques (RR=0.44, 95% CI 0.33; 0.59), endometrial laser intrauterine therapy (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.10; 0.32) and bipolar radio frequency treatments (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15; 0.31)) and long-term follow-up (microwave ablation (RR=0.11, 95% CI 0.01; 0.86), bipolar radio frequency ablation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90), first generation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90) and endometrial laser intrauterine thermal therapy (RR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01; 0.36)). When calculating efficacy based only on calculated bleeding scores, the highest scores were achieved by cryoablation systems (p-score=0.98). CONCLUSION: Most second-generation EA systems were superior to first-generation systems, and statistical superiority between devices depended on which characteristic was measured (secondary amenorrhoea rate, treatment of AUB, patient satisfaction or treatment of dysmenorrhoea). Although our study was limited by a paucity of data comparing large numbers of devices, we conclude that there is no evidence at this time that any one of the examined second-generation systems is clearly superior to all others.

Ultrasound Appearance of the Endometrium Post-Radiofrequency Ablation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the ultrasonographic appearance of the post-ablative endometrium to improve knowledge of its sonographic findings. METHODS: This was an Institutional Review Board approved prospective study of patients who underwent second-generation endometrial ablation from 2016 to 2019 at a single health system. Patients had postoperative transvaginal ultrasounds at 2, 6, and 12 months. Ultrasound reports were analyzed for endometrial thickness, description of the endometrium and myometrium, presence of uterine fibroids, and uterine size. Statistical tests for repeated measures were utilized. RESULTS: There were 68 patients with the average age of 42 (SD 6) years and a BMI of 33 (SD 8). Preoperatively the average endometrial thickness was 10 mm, uterine length was 9.7 cm, and 38.2% had leiomyoma. The average endometrial thickness decreased at each ultrasound: 8.4 mm (SD 3.4), 7.2 mm (SD 3.0), and 5.8 mm (SD 2.5) at 2, 6, and 12 months, respectively. When comparing endometrial thickness postoperatively there was a significant difference at 2 and 12 months (P = .041), and 6 and 12 months (P = .031). There was no change during the postoperative period in the presence of leiomyoma, hyperechoic endometrium, hypoechoic endometrium, heterogeneous endometrium, and cystic endometrium on the ultrasounds. CONCLUSION: After ablation with a second-generation device, the endometrial thickness on ultrasound decreases with time following surgery. Additional studies correlating these findings to clinical outcomes would be useful.

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.

Risk of Hysterectomy After Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of hysterectomy after nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding. DATA SOURCES: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible articles from inception until June 13, 2022. We used combinations of search terms for endometrial ablation and hysterectomy. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Articles included in the review described the incidence of hysterectomy at a specific point in time after ablation with a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The literature search yielded a total of 3,022 hits. A total of 53 studies met our inclusion and exclusion criteria, including six retrospective studies, 24 randomized controlled trials, and 23 prospective studies. A total of 48,071 patients underwent endometrial ablation between 1992 and 2017. Follow-up duration varied between 12 and 120 months. Analyses per follow-up moment showed 4.3% hysterectomy rate at 12 months of follow-up (n=29 studies), 11.1% at 18 months (n=1 study), 8.0% at 24 months (n=11 studies), 10.2% at 36 months (n=12 studies), 7.6% at 48 months (n=2 studies), and 12.4% at 60 months (n=6 studies). Two studies reported a mean hysterectomy rate at 10 years after ablation of 21.3%. Minimal clinically relevant differences in hysterectomy rates were observed among the different study designs. Furthermore, we found no significant differences in hysterectomy rate among the different nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices. CONCLUSION: The risk of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation seems to increase from 4.3% after 1 year to 12.4% after 5 years. Clinicians can use the results of this review to counsel patients about the 12% risk of hysterectomy 5 years after endometrial ablation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020156281.

Endometrial ablation techniques in treating menorrhagia.

Menorrhagia is a frequent gynecological problem that is clinically described as excessive blood loss of 80 mL per menstrual cycle. It has the potential to lower their quality of life and to induce anemia. Medical therapy has typically been the first line of treatment; however, it is frequently ineffectual. Hysterectomy, on the other hand, is clearly 100 percent effective in stopping bleeding, but it is more expensive and can cause serious problems. So, the endometrial ablation is preferred when the endometrial layer is destroyed or removed during the procedure. To "ablate" (remove) the endometrial lining, a variety of procedures has been devised. The gold standard resectoscopic procedures (laser, transcervical endometrial resection, and rollerball) require hysteroscopic visualization of the uterus and while safe, necessitate expert surgeons. Several innovative procedures have lately been developed, the majority of which may be conducted blindly and take less time. Many nonresectoscopic procedures are still in the process of being developed, refined, and investigated. This article discusses the various techniques and procedures used in endometrial ablation, the importance of the physician using endometrial thinning agents because success rates are higher when thinning agents are used, and the importance of women understanding the complications mainly related to pregnancy. Women should be helped to make informed management decisions by discussing the risks and benefits of each treatment with their consultant. Since there are many treatment options available, with no one option being superior in all respects, patient preference and treatment preferences should be considered when deciding on management.

Evaluation of Hysteroscopic Endometrectomy: A Reappraisal.

Endometrial ablation can be performed using a variety of techniques, including resectoscopic or non-resectoscopic approaches. In this study, we compared 2 resectoscopic endometrial ablation techniques. The first technique was rollerball coagulation followed by endometrectomy (type A; n = 103), and the second was the reverse (type B; n = 107). Besides excessive bleeding in 4 cases, the procedures were uneventful in both groups of patients. We did not encounter uterine perforation or cervical laceration. Satisfaction rates were 97% and 99% with an overall hysterectomy rate of 2.9%. These results compared favorably with those in the literature. The results of our study show that hysteroscopic endometrectomy is effective with few associated complications.

Endometrial ablation plus levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation alone in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial; MIRA2 trial.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that between 12 to 25% of women who undergo an endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) are dissatisfied after two years because of recurrent menstrual bleeding and/or cyclical pelvic pain, with around 15% of these women ultimately having a hysterectomy. The insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) immediately after endometrial ablation may inactivate residual untreated endometrium and/or inhibit the regeneration of endometrial tissue. Furthermore, the LNG-IUS may prevent agglutination of the uterine walls preventing intrauterine adhesion formation associated with endometrial ablation. In these ways, insertion of an LNG-IUS immediately after endometrial ablation might prevent subsequent hysterectomies because of persisting uterine bleeding and cyclical pelvic pain or pain that arises de novo. Hence, we evaluate if the combination of endometrial ablation and an LNG-IUS is superior to endometrial ablation alone in terms of reducing subsequent rates of hysterectomy at two years following the initial ablative procedure. METHODS/DESIGN: We perform a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 35 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, who opt for treatment with endometrial ablation and without contraindication for an LNG-IUS are eligible. After informed consent, participants are randomly allocated to either endometrial ablation plus LNG-IUS or endometrial ablation alone. The primary outcome is the hysterectomy rate at 24 months following endometrial ablation. Secondary outcomes include women's satisfaction, reinterventions, complications, side effects, menstrual bleeding patterns, quality of life, societal costs. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will help clinicians inform women with HMB who opt for treatment with endometrial ablation about whether concomitant use of the LNG-IUS is beneficial for reducing the need for hysterectomy due to ongoing bleeding and/or pain symptoms. Trial registration Dutch Trial registration: NL7817. Registered 20 June 2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7817 .

Resectoscopic Surgery Part III: Advanced Resectoscopic Surgery.

In this final section of our three-part series, we will apply the basic and intermediate skills described in the first two parts to advance the gynecologist's skills to accomplish the most demanding of resectoscopic surgical challenges. In Part I of this series, we reviewed the benefits of the continuous flow gynecologic resectoscope (CFGR) and how the motivated gynecologist can assemble an operative team and overcome the impediments to learning the use of this versatile and minimally invasive instrument. In this first section, we outlined and analyzed basic resectoscopic surgery-endometrial ablation, the resection of small submucous myomas and endometrial polyps, as well as the treatment of mild Asherman's syndrome and the removal of retained products of conception. In Part II-intermediate level resectoscopic surgery-we introduced procedures such as endomyometrial resection, the resection of intermediate-size submucous leiomyomas, hysteroscopic metroplasty, and endocervical resection. Though it is not considered an absolute requirement to accomplish procedures at this level, sonographic guidance was introduced in preparation for more challenging cases. In Part III, the author reviews advanced resectoscopic procedures in which sonographic guidance is a requirement for the management of severe intrauterine adhesions and late-onset endometrial ablation failures, the management of FIGO Type 3 and 4 intramural myomas, as well as large submucous myomas.

Safety and efficacy of microwave endometrial ablation for patients with previous uterine surgery: a pilot study.

MEA (microwave endometrial ablation) is a treatment that can control hypermenorrhea. With the increase in the number of caesarean sections and myomectomies, an increasing number of patients with MEA have undergone previous incision of the uterine myometrium. Uterine perforation is major complication. Here we compared the incidence of complications and recurrence between groups with or without previous uterine surgery. 35 patients who underwent MEA were enrolled in the study. We assessed the thickness of uterine myometrium by MRI and transvaginal ultrasonography (TV-US). 12 patients (34%) had previous uterine surgery; Among 12 patients with previous uterine surgery, 6 (50%) showed thinning of the myometrium. No patient showed any complications. There was no difference in recurrence rate between two groups (1/12 = 8% and 2/23 = 8%, respectively). MEA can be performed safely and effectively even for patients with previous uterine surgery.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? MEA (microwave endometrial ablation) is a treatment that can control hypermenorrhea.A few serious complications have been reported, including uterine perforation and intestinal injury. There have been no collective reports on women with a history of uterine surgery, and the decision to perform MEA and the detailed procedures have not been clarified.What do the results of this study add? No patient who received MEA showed any complication regardless of previous uterine surgery. There was no difference in recurrence rate of hypermenorrhea between groups with and without previous uterine surgery. MEA could be performed safely and effectively in patients with previous uterine surgery preoperative imaging and intraoperative ultrasoundsWhat are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Curently, with the increase in the number of caesarean sections and myomectomies, the increasing number of patients with MEA have undergone previous incision of the uterine myometrium and this causes thinning of the myometrium. MEA can be safely performed without losing any therapeutic effect, even in patients with a history of uterine surgery, by using MRI and TV-US as preoperative evaluations.

Hysteroscopic Access and Uterine Cavity Evaluation 12 Months after Endometrial Ablation with the Cerene Cryotherapy Device.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether physical access and the ability to systematically assess the postablation uterine cavity were preserved at 12 months after endometrial ablation with the Cerene cryotherapy device (ChannelMedsystems, Emeryville, CA). DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. SETTING: In the clinic at 8 US sites and outpatient hospital setting at 2 sites in Canada and 1 site in Mexico. PATIENTS: A total of 230 (of 242) subjects continued in the study at the Month 12 visit after ablation. Two hundred twenty-three subjects were available for a diagnostic hysteroscopic evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects who had previously been treated with a 2.5-minute cryoablation of the endometrium utilizing the Cerene device underwent a diagnostic hysteroscopy at the Month 12 follow-up visit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The uterine cavity was accessible in 220 of 223 subjects (98.7%) and not accessible in 3 (1.3%) because of pain (n = 2) and cervical stenosis (n = 1). Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible in 204 of 220 subjects (92.7%) with one or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2% (182 of 204) of subjects. Both tubal ostia were visible in 160 of 204 subjects (78.4%) and one ostium in 22 of 204 subjects (10.8%). The cavity was not visualized in the remaining 16 of 220 subjects (7.2%) because of intrauterine adhesions (n = 14), technical difficulties (n = 1), or menstruation (n = 1). In 95.6% (195 of 204) of subjects where the cavity was visualized, the hysteroscopic view was judged adequate to evaluate the uterine cavity for pathologic change. No significant complications occurred during the hysteroscopic evaluations. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date conducted to hysteroscopically evaluate the postablation uterine cavity. Uterine cavity assessment with in-office hysteroscopy 1 year after the use of the Cerene cryotherapy device is attainable, enabling both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures within the endometrial cavity.

Re-intervention and patient satisfaction rates following office radiofrequency endometrial ablation: a comparative retrospective study of 408 cases.

This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and long-term satisfaction of radiofrequency endometrial ablation outside the context of clinical trials in 408 women, and compared the outcome between office-setting (211, 52%) and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics (197, 48%). The Kaplan Meir time-to-event analysis showed that the cumulative number of women undergoing surgical re-intervention was 32 with a probability of 9.4% (95% CI: 6.3 - 12.5%) at 2-years, and 45 with a probability of 14.5% (95% CI: 10.3 - 18.2%) at 5-years. There was no statistically significant difference in the re-intervention rate between office and day-case groups (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.68 - 3.1, p = .3). The satisfaction rate, measured by Visual Analogue Scale, was not statistically different (p = .5) between office (109; 80.7%) and day-case (96; 82.8%) groups. This study showed lower surgical re-intervention rate than previously reported in observational studies, and high rates of long-term women satisfaction. The outcomes were similar in office and day-case settings.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Previous studies have shown the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency endometrial ablation for treating heavy periods. However, studies investigating it, outside clinical trials, either included a small sample size, a short-term follow-up, poor reporting so that it is impossible to judge whether some women underwent re-intervention in another centre, failed to discriminate in analysis between second-generation techniques, or assessed only short-term satisfaction.What do the results of this study add? This is the largest series reported from a single centre and the first study reporting long-term satisfaction in women, outside clinical trials. Surgical re-intervention was used as the primary outcome measure which is an objective measure rather than the change in the monthly flow which is rather subjective. More importantly, the study records the similarity, in the outcome and women's satisfaction rate, between office and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Endometrial ablation service is widely implemented in office-setting in the UK. We hope the result of this study encourages implementation on a larger scale in office across centres in the world with its multiple advantages both to women and service alike.

Clinical analysis of 2152 cases of abnormal uterine bleeding treated by NovaSure endometrial ablation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency, postoperative hysterectomy rate, and influencing factors for therapeutic effect of the NovaSure endometrial ablation procedure in abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2152 patients from the Department of Gynecology at the Third Xiangya Hospital, CSU from October 2010 to December 2018. RESULTS: From the first year to the eighth year after operation, annual effective rate was above 95.24%, and the differences were not statistically significant. There are statistically significant differences between the effective and ineffective groups with regard to age, intrauterine polyps, total length of the uterus, systemic coagulation disorder, and preoperative hemoglobin. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors associated with systemic coagulation disorders (P = 0.027) and high total uterine length (P = 0.003) affected NovaSure efficacy in the treatment of AUB. By December 2019, the postoperative hysterectomy rate was 1.86% (40/2152) and the complication rate was 1.67% (36/2152). CONCLUSION: NovaSure is a reliable treatment for AUB and serious medical complications because of its simple operation, low amount of bleeding, quick postoperative recovery, and safe and effective short-term and long-term efficacy. However, it should be carefully selected for patients with a total uterus length exceeding 10 cm.

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).

The effect of laparoscopic excisional and ablative surgery on ovarian reserve in patients with endometriomas: A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: This study investigates the effect of 2 laparoscopic methods on ovarian reserve in patients of reproductive age with endometriomas.This was a retrospective study performed at a tertiary medical center from Jan 1st to Dec 31st, 2016. Laparoscopic cystectomy (group 1, 46 patients) and laparoscopic ovarian drainage and ablation with bipolar coagulation at low power (group 2, 30 patients) were performed to treat endometriomas larger than 3 cm. Anti-Müllerian hormone was used to assess ovarian reserve before and after surgery.There were no statistically significant differences in patients' baseline clinical characteristics, endometriotic stage, operative time, and follow-up time between the groups. The mean serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration decreased significantly from 4.25 ng/ml to 3.40 ng/ml in group 1 compared with 4.47 ng/ml to 3.95 ng/ml in group 2 (P  = .04). Pregnancy rates were 71.05% in group 1 and 73.08% in group 2, with a mean follow-up of 30.40 months and 32.35 months (P  > .99), respectively. Although there was no statistical significance, the recurrence rate in group 1 was lower than that in group 2 (4.35% vs 16.67%, respectively; P = .11). The mean diameter of recurrent cysts was 1.75 cm in group 1 and 1.54 cm in group 2 (P = .13).Appropriate laparoscopic electrocautery of the endometrioma wall with a bipolar instrument may be a valid alternative to traditional laparoscopic cystectomy, with less effects on ovarian reserve.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common in otherwise healthy women of reproductive age, and can affect physical health and quality of life. Surgery is usually a second-line treatment of HMB. Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) to remove or ablate the endometrium is less invasive than hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment and can be via open (laparotomy) approach, or via minimally invasive approaches (vaginally or laparoscopically). Each approach has its own advantages and risk profile. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of endometrial resection or ablation versus different routes of hysterectomy (open, minimally invasive hysterectomy, or unspecified route) for the treatment of HMB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (July 2020), and reference lists, grey literature and trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared techniques of endometrial resection/ablation with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of HMB in premenopausal women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (1966 participants) comparing EA/ER to hysterectomy (open (abdominal), minimally invasive (laparoscopic or vaginal), or unspecified (or at surgeon's discretion) route of hysterectomy). The results were rated as moderate-, low- and very low-certainty evidence. Endometrial resection/ablation versus open hysterectomy We found two trials. Women having EA/ER are probably less likely to perceive an improvement in HMB compared to women having open hysterectomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.95; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably have a 13% risk of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 on the open hysterectomy group; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to similar quality of life at two years (mean difference (MD) -5.30, 95% CI -11.90 to 1.30; 1 study, 155 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and satisfaction rate at one year (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 1 study, 194 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.20; 2 studies, 247 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably reduces time to return to normal activity compared to open hysterectomy (MD -21.00 days, 95% CI -24.78 to -17.22; 1 study, 197 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Endometrial resection/ablation versus minimally invasive hysterectomy We found five trials. The proportion of women with perception of improvement in HMB at two years may be similar between groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 1 study, 79 women; low-certainty evidence). Blood loss may be higher in the EA/ER group when assessed using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life is probably lower in the EA/ER group compared to the minimally invasive hysterectomy group at two years according to the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) (MD -10.71, 95% CI -15.11 to -6.30; 2 studies, 145 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; 1 study, 616 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably increases the risk of further surgery for HMB compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy (RR 7.70, 95% CI 2.54 to 23.32; 4 studies, 922 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and treatments probably have similar rates of any serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59; 4 studies, 809 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with EA/ER are probably less likely to be satisfied with treatment at one year (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 558 women; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data for time to return to work or normal life because of extreme heterogeneity (99%); however, the three studies reporting this all had the same direction of effect favouring EA/ER. Endometrial resection/ablation versus unspecified route of hysterectomy We found three trials. EA/ER may lead to a lower perception of improvement in HMB compared to unspecified route of hysterectomy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; 2 studies, 403 women; low-certainty evidence). Although EA/ER may lead to similar quality of life using the SF-36 General Health Perception at two years' follow-up (MD -1.90, 95% CI -8.67 to 4.87; 1 study, 209 women; low-certainty evidence), the proportion of women with improvement in general health at one year may be lower (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; 1 study, 185 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably has a risk of 5.4% of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 with total hysterectomy; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and reduces the proportion of women with any serious adverse event (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.80; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to a similar satisfaction rate at one year' follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 3 studies, 545 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER may lead to shorter time to return to normal activity (MD -18.90 days, 95% CI -24.63 to -13.17; 1 study, 172 women; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for HMB. Effectiveness varies with EA/ER compared to different hysterectomy approaches. The perception of improvement in HMB with EA/ER is probably lower compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but may be similar compared to minimally invasive. Quality of life with EA/ER is probably similar to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but lower compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. Further surgery for treatment failure is probably more likely with EA/ER compared to all routes of hysterectomy. Satisfaction rates also vary. EA/ER probably has a similar rate of satisfaction compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but a lower rate of satisfaction compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. The proportion having any serious adverse event appears similar in all groups, but specific adverse events did reported difference between EA/ER and different routes. We were unable to draw conclusions about the time to return to normal activity, but the direction of effect suggests it is likely to be shorter with EA/ER.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects the physical functioning and social well-being of many women. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation are 2 frequently applied treatments in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial was performed in 26 hospitals and in a network of general practices in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without a pregnancy wish or intracavitary pathology were randomly allocated to treatment with either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) or endometrial ablation, performed with a bipolar radiofrequency device (NovaSure). The primary outcome was blood loss at 24 months, measured with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score. Secondary outcomes included reintervention rates, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function. RESULTS: We registered 645 women as eligible, of whom 270 women provided informed consent. Of these, 132 women were allocated to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 616) and 138 women to endometrial ablation (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 630). At 24 months, mean Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores were 64.8 in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 14.2 in the endometrial ablation group (difference, 50.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-96.7; noninferiority, P=.87 [25 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart point margin]). Compared with 14 women (10%) in the endometrial ablation group, 34 women (27%) underwent a surgical reintervention in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group (relative risk, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-4.68). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation strategies lead to a large decrease in menstrual blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable quality of life scores after treatment. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in menstrual blood loss in favor of endometrial ablation, and we could not demonstrate noninferiority of starting with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women who start with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, a reversible and less invasive treatment, are at an increased risk of needing additional treatment compared with women who start with endometrial ablation. The results of this study will enable physicians to provide women with heavy menstrual bleeding with the evidence to make a well-informed decision between the 2 treatments.