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.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women of reproductive age, causing them physical problems, social disruption and reducing their quality of life. Medical therapy has traditionally been first-line therapy. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Less invasive surgical techniques, such as endometrial resection and ablation, have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted-but were not limited to-the following: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the ongoing trial registries. We made attempts to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 1999, 2007, 2008, 2013 and on 10 December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial resection or ablation (by any means) with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women. No included trials used third generation techniques.Clinical measures of improved bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates were observed in women who had undergone hysterectomy compared to endometrial ablation. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93; 4 studies, 650 women, I² = 31%; low-quality evidence), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 2 studies, 292 women, I² = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 2 studies, 237 women, I² = 79%). Women in the endometrial ablation group also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart compared to their baseline (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79; 1 study, 68 women; moderate-quality evidence) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 16.17, 95% CI 5.53 to 47.24; 927 women; 7 studies; I2 = 0%), at two years (RR 34.06, 95% CI 9.86 to 117.65; 930 women; 6 studies; I2 = 0%), at three years (RR 22.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 370.26; 172 women; 1 study) and at four years (RR 36.32, 95% CI 5.09 to 259.21;197 women; 1 study). The satisfaction rate was lower amongst those who had endometrial ablation at two years after surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 4 studies, 567 women, I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of clear difference was reported between post-treatment satisfaction rates in groups at other follow-up times (1 and 4 years).Most adverse events, both major and minor, were more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had an endometrial ablation were less likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.31; participants = 621; studies = 4; I2 = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59; 791 women; 5 studies; I2 = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 605 women; 3 studies; I2 = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 858 women; 5 studies; I2 = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 202 women; 1 study) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 172 women; 1 study).Recovery time was shorter in the endometrial ablation group, considering hospital stay, time to return to normal activities and time to return to work; we did not, however, pool these data owing to high heterogeneity. Some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), generated a low GRADE score, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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 offers permanent and immediate relief from heavy menstrual bleeding, it is associated with a longer operating time and recovery period. Hysterectomy also has higher rates of postoperative complications such as sepsis, blood transfusion and haematoma (vault and wound). The initial cost of endometrial destruction is lower than that of hysterectomy but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), which includes both menorrhagia and metrorrhagia, is an important cause of ill health in women. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Several less invasive surgical techniques (e.g. transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE), laser approaches) and various methods of endometrial ablation have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted but were not limited to the following: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Attempts were made to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 2007, 2008 and 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included in the review were any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial destruction by any means with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data. Outcomes analysed included improvement in menstrual blood loss, satisfaction, change in quality of life, duration of surgery and hospital stay, time to return to work, adverse events and requirements for repeat surgery due to failure of the initial surgical treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review were identified. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women.An advantage in favour of hysterectomy compared with endometrial ablation was observed in various measures of improvement in bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (RR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93, four studies, 650 women, I(2) = 31%), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, two studies, 292 women, I(2) = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, two studies, 237 women, I(2) = 79%). The same group of women also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79, one study, 68 women) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91, one study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 14.9, 95% CI 5.2 to 42.6, six studies, 887 women, I(2) = 0%), at two years (RR 23.4, 95% CI 8.3 to 65.8, six studies, 930 women, I(2) = 0%), at three years (RR 11.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 80.1, one study, 172 women) and at four years (RR 36.4, 95% CI 5.1 to 259.2, one study, 197 women). Most adverse events, both major and minor, were significantly more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had a hysterectomy were more likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3, four studies, 621 women, I(2) = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6, four studies, 751 women, I(2) = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4, three studies, 605 women, I(2) = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.3, five studies, 858 women, I(2) = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.5, one study, 202 women) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, one study, 172 women).For some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), a low GRADE score was generated, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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 longer operating time (particularly for the laparoscopic route), a longer recovery period and higher rates of postoperative complications, it offers permanent relief from heavy menstrual bleeding. The initial cost of endometrial destruction is significantly lower than that of hysterectomy, but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.