Microwave endometrial ablation vs. rollerball electroablation for menorrhagia: a multicenter randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) with those of rollerball electroablation (REA) for the treatment of menorrhagia. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Eight academic medical centers and private medical practices. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-two women with documented menorrhagia due to benign causes. INTERVENTION: MEA or REA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: By intent-to-treat analysis, the success rate of MEA at 12 months (87.0%; CI 81.7%-91.2%) did not differ significantly (p = .40) from that of REA (83.2%; CI 74.7%-89.7%). Among evaluable patients, success rate was also similar (p = .24) in the MEA (96.4%; CI 92.7%-98.5%) and REA (92.7%; CI 85.6%-97%) groups. The amenorrhea rate in evaluable patients after MEA was 61.3% (CI 54.1 %-68.2%). In patients with myomas, the success and amenorrhea rates in evaluable patients after MEA were 90.3% (CI 74.2%-98%) and 61.3% (CI 42.2%-78.2%), respectively. In evaluable patients with body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater, MEA success rate was 96.7% (CI 88.5%-99.6%) compared with 81.8% (CI 59.7%-94.8%) for REA (p = .042). The ablation procedure was performed under IV sedation in 62% of patients in the MEA group versus 18% of patients in the REA group (p <.001); whereas, general anesthesia was employed more often in patients undergoing REA (37% vs. 76%, p <.001). No major complications were encountered. Patient satisfaction with results of treatment was high (98.5% of the MEA and 99.0% of the REA group). CONCLUSIONS: Microwave endometrial ablation is an efficacious and safe procedure for the treatment of menorrhagia. Over half of patients treated with MEA achieve amenorrhea, and the procedure is suitable for women with myomas and irregular uterine cavities. The procedure is easily learned and can be performed rapidly, under IV sedation in most cases.

RETIRED: Canadian contraception consensus.

This document has been archived because it contains outdated information. It should not be consulted for clinical use, but for historical research only. Please visit the journal website for the most recent guidelines.

SOGC clinical practice guidelines: Canadian contraception consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for health-care providers on the use of contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. OUTCOMES: Overall efficacy of cited contraceptive methods, assessing reduction in pregnancy rate, risk of infection, safety, ease of use, and side effects; the effect of cited contraceptive methods on sexual health and general well-being; and the cost and availability of cited contraceptive methods in Canada. EVIDENCE: Medline and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles in English on subjects related to contraception, sexuality, and sexual health from January 1988 to March 2003, in order to update the Report of the Consensus Committee on Contraception published in May-July 1998. Relevant Canadian Government publications and position papers from appropriate health and family planning organizations were also reviewed. VALUES: The quality of the evidence is rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Recommendations for practice are ranked according to the method described in this Report.

RETIRED: Canadian contraception consensus.

This document has been archived because it contains outdated information. It should not be consulted for clinical use, but for historical research only. Please visit the journal website for the most recent guidelines.