Clinical effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for pain relief after caesarean section: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for acute pain relief after caesarean section, in comparison to normal practice, remains uncertain. METHODS: Electronic literature databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of TAP blocks following caesarean section. Trials were eligible if comparisons were made against no block or placebo, and/or intrathecal morphine. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Data for consistent outcomes were subject, where possible, to meta-analysis and presented as either mean differences with 95% confidence intervals or incidence of a particular event. RESULTS: Twenty published studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. TAP blocks significantly reduced pain at rest both when compared with placebo or no TAP blocks (-0.96, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.25, P=0.008) and intrathecal morphine (1.10, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.60, P<0.0001). Both these comparisons showed the greatest improvement with pain on movement, (-1.58, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.47, P=0.005 and 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.94, respectively, P<0.00001). Morphine consumption was significantly reduced with TAP blocks when compared to placebo or no TAP blocks (-15.88, 95% CI -22.02 to -9.73, P<0.00001). This significance was lost when TAP blocks were both compared to intrathecal morphine (0.89, 95% CI -0.64 to 2.43, P=0.25) and given in co-administration (0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10, P=1.00). CONCLUSION: TAP blocks provide effective analgesia after caesarean section; however, additional benefits are more difficult to demonstrate when long-acting intrathecal opioids are administered.

Second generation endometrial ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding: network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness of second generation ablation techniques in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis on the primary outcome measures of amenorrhoea, heavy bleeding, and patients' dissatisfaction with treatment. DATA SOURCES: Nineteen randomised controlled trials (involving 3287 women) were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to April 2011. The reference lists of known relevant articles were searched for further articles. Two reviewers independently selected articles without language restrictions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials involving second generation endometrial destruction techniques for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to medical treatment. RESULTS: Of the three most commonly used techniques, network meta-analysis showed that bipolar radiofrequency and microwave ablation resulted in higher rates of amenorrhoea than thermal balloon ablation at around 12 months (odds ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 4.12, P<0.001; and 1.66, 1.01 to 2.71, P=0.05, respectively), but there was no evidence of a convincing difference between the three techniques in the number of women dissatisfied with treatment or still experiencing heavy bleeding. Compared with bipolar radio frequency and microwave devices, an increased number of women still experienced heavy bleeding after free fluid ablation (2.19, 1.07 to 4.50, P=0.03; and 2.91, 1.23 to 6.88, P=0.02, respectively). Compared with radio frequency ablation, free fluid ablation was associated with reduced rates of amenorrhoea (0.36, 0.19 to 0.67, P=0.004) and increased rates of dissatisfaction (4.79, 1.07 to 21.5, P=0.04). Of the less commonly used devices, endometrial laser intrauterine thermotherapy was associated with increased rates of amenorrhoea compared with all the other devices, while cryoablation led to a reduced rate compared with bipolar radio frequency and microwave. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar radio frequency and microwave ablative devices are more effective than thermal balloon and free fluid ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding with second generation endometrial ablation devices.

Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA), and Mirena® (Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of existing randomised controlled trials to determine the short- to medium-term effects of hysterectomy, EA and Mirena. A population-based retrospective cohort study based on record linkage to investigate the long-term effects of ablative techniques and hysterectomy in terms of failure rates and complications. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hysterectomy versus first- and second-generation ablative techniques and Mirena. SETTING: Data from women treated for heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained from national and international trials. Scottish national data were obtained from the Scottish Information Services Division. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were undergoing treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were included. INTERVENTIONS: Hysterectomy, first- and second-generation EA, and Mirena. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, recurrence of symptoms, further surgery and costs. RESULTS: Data from randomised trials indicated that at 12 months more women were dissatisfied with first-generation EA than hysterectomy [odds ratio (OR): 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 3.93; p = 0.0002), but hospital stay [WMD (weighted mean difference) 3.0 days, 95% CI 2.9 to 3.1 days; p < 0.00001] and time to resumption of normal activities (WMD 5.2 days, 95% CI 4.7 to 5.7 days; p < 0.00001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes associated with first- and second-generation techniques were comparable [12.2% (123/1006) vs 10.6% (110/1034); OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; p = 0.2). Rates of dissatisfaction with Mirena and second-generation EA were similar [18.1% (17/94) vs 22.5% (23/102); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.53; p = 0.4]. Indirect estimates suggested that hysterectomy was also preferable to second-generation EA (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.24; p = 0.006) in terms of patient dissatisfaction. The evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena was weaker (OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.29; p = 0.07). In women treated by EA or hysterectomy and followed up for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] duration of 6.2 (2.7-10.8) and 11.6 (7.9-14.8) years, respectively, 962/11,299 (8.5%) women originally treated by EA underwent further gynaecological surgery. While the risk of adnexal surgery was similar in both groups [adjusted hazards ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.15)], women who had undergone ablation were less likely to need pelvic floor repair [adjusted hazards ratio 0.62 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.77)] and tension-free vaginal tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence [adjusted hazards ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.74)]. Abdominal hysterectomy led to a lower chance of pelvic floor repair surgery [hazards ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64)] than vaginal hysterectomy. The incidence of endometrial cancer following EA was 0.02%. Hysterectomy was the most cost-effective treatment. It dominated first-generation EA and, although more expensive, produced more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than second-generation EA and Mirena. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for hysterectomy compared with Mirena and hysterectomy compared with second-generation ablation were £1440 per additional QALY and £970 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer hospital stay and time to resumption of normal activities, more women were satisfied after hysterectomy than after EA. The few data available suggest that Mirena is potentially cheaper and more effective than first-generation ablation techniques, with rates of satisfaction that are similar to second-generation techniques. Owing to a paucity of trials, there is limited evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena. The risk of pelvic floor surgery is higher in women treated by hysterectomy than by ablation. Although the most cost-effective strategy, hysterectomy may not be considered an initial option owing to its invasive nature and higher risk of complications. Future research should focus on evaluation of the clinical effectivesness and cost-effectiveness of the best second-generation EA technique under local anaesthetic versus Mirena and types of hysterectomy such as laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus conventional hysterectomy and second-generation EA. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost effectiveness analysis comparing first and second generation endometrial ablative techniques, hysterectomy, and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Model based economic evaluation with data from an individual patient data meta-analysis supplemented with cost and outcome data from published sources taking an NHS (National Health Service) perspective. A state transition (Markov) model was developed, the structure being informed by the reviews of the trials and clinical input. A subgroup analysis, one way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also carried out. POPULATION: Four hypothetical cohorts of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: One of four alternative strategies: Mirena, first or second generation endometrial ablation techniques, or hysterectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Hysterectomy is the preferred strategy for the first intervention for heavy menstrual bleeding. Although hysterectomy is more expensive, it produces more QALYs relative to other remaining strategies and is likely to be considered cost effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with Mirena is £1440 (€1633, $2350) per additional QALY. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with second generation ablation is £970 per additional QALY. CONCLUSION: In light of the acceptable thresholds used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, hysterectomy would be considered the preferred strategy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. The results concur with those of other studies but are highly sensitive to utility values used in the analysis.

Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative effectiveness of hysterectomy, endometrial destruction (both "first generation" hysteroscopic and "second generation" non-hysteroscopic techniques), and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of data from individual patients, with direct and indirect comparisons made on the primary outcome measure of patients' dissatisfaction. DATA SOURCES: Data were sought from the 30 randomised controlled trials identified after a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, reference lists, and contact with experts. Raw data were available from 2814 women randomised into 17 trials (seven trials including 1359 women for first v second generation endometrial destruction; six trials including 1042 women for hysterectomy v first generation endometrial destruction; one trial including 236 women for hysterectomy v Mirena; three trials including 177 women for second generation endometrial destruction v Mirena). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing hysterectomy, first and second generation endometrial destruction, and Mirena for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to other medical treatment. RESULTS: At around 12 months, more women were dissatisfied with outcome with first generation hysteroscopic techniques than with hysterectomy (13% v 5%; odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 3.9, P<0.001), but hospital stay (weighted mean difference 3.0 days, 2.9 to 3.1 days, P<0.001) and time to resumption of normal activities (5.2 days, 4.7 to 5.7 days, P<0.001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes were comparable with first and second generation techniques (odds ratio 1.2, 0.9 to 1.6, P=0.2), although second generation techniques were quicker (weighted mean difference 14.5 minutes, 13.7 to 15.3 minutes, P<0.001) and women recovered sooner (0.48 days, 0.20 to 0.75 days, P<0.001), with fewer procedural complications. Indirect comparison suggested more unsatisfactory outcomes with second generation techniques than with hysterectomy (11% v 5%; odds ratio 2.3, 1.3 to 4.2, P=0.006). Similar estimates were seen when Mirena was indirectly compared with hysterectomy (17% v 5%; odds ratio 2.2, 0.9 to 5.3, P=0.07), although this comparison lacked power because of the limited amount of data available for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: More women are dissatisfied after endometrial destruction than after hysterectomy. Dissatisfaction rates are low after all treatments, and hysterectomy is associated with increased length of stay in hospital and a longer recovery period. Definitive evidence on effectiveness of Mirena compared with more invasive procedures is lacking.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized evidence to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation in chronic pelvic pain.

BACKGROUND: There have been conflicting results in randomized trials of the effects of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation (LUNA) in chronic pelvic pain. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) to provide the most comprehensive and reliable assessment of the effectiveness of LUNA. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in the Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library databases from database inception to August 2009. The reference lists of known relevant papers were searched for any further articles. Randomized trials comparing LUNA with no additional intervention were selected and authors contacted for IPD. Raw data were available from 862 women randomized into five trials. Pain scores were calibrated to a 10-point scale and were analysed using a multilevel model allowing for repeated measures. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between LUNA and No LUNA for the worst pain recorded over a 12 month time period (mean difference 0.25 points in favour of No LUNA on a 0-10 point scale, 95% confidence interval: -0.08 to 0.58; P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: LUNA does not result in improved chronic pelvic pain.

Systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound as the method of measuring bladder wall thickness in the diagnosis of detrusor overactivity.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A systematic review was carried out to study the hypothesis that bladder wall thickness (BWT) on ultrasound is accurate in diagnosing detrusor overactivity (DO). METHODS: Databases were searched from database inception to January 2009. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data on study characteristics, quality and results. RESULTS: Five out of 190 screened studies were included. There were variations in the quality, methods of performing the ultrasound and urodynamics studies, and the format of reporting findings. BWT was more in women with DO than those with other types of incontinence in four out of five studies. Using a 5-mm cutoff (two studies), sensitivity varied between 40% and 84%, and specificity 78-89%. CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of data to reliably estimate accuracy of BWT in DO.

Meta-analysis using individual patient data from randomised trials to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain: a proposed protocol.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are a number of clinical trials, but no international collaboration for collating research on effectiveness of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation (LUNA) for alleviating chronic pelvic pain. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis was used by collecting individual patient data (IPD) from the existing trials, to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of LUNA that will be generalisable in various clinical contexts. METHODS: IPD will be sought and collected from all relevant (both already finished and continuing) randomised trials identified through previous systematic reviews. After obtaining raw data and cleaning the database, analysis will be of all patients ever randomised based on the intention-to-treat principle using endpoints measured at 12 months following randomisation. PROPOSAL: We will update searches, contact all authors, obtain data in whatever form it can be provided, build a single database, produce results for individual studies, have them verified by original authors, explore of any heterogeneity and reasons behind it and finally pool all raw data in to a meta-analysis using appropriate statistical methods. The project will test the effectiveness of LUNA for women with chronic pelvic pain. It will also motivate collaborating primary investigators to undertake new primary studies to corroborate or improve upon the conclusions derived from the retrospective analysis.