Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus endometrial ablation for women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893. FINDINGS: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB. DESIGN: A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure. SETTING: Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork. INTERVENTIONS: LASH compared with second-generation EA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure. FUTURE WORK: Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Almost 1.5 million women in England and Wales suffer from heavy periods. Initial treatment involves tablets or a medicated coil inserted within the womb. Sometimes these treatments do not work and many women need an operation, either endometrial ablation (EA) (removing the lining of the womb) or a full hysterectomy (complete removal of the womb). Previous studies have shown that a full hysterectomy is better at relieving symptoms, but the risk of complications during surgery is higher and patients take longer to recover fully. A newer operation, laparoscopic (keyhole) supracervical hysterectomy, or 'LASH', removes only the part of the womb that causes periods and preserves the cervix or neck of the womb. Women who have LASH can expect fewer complications, earlier discharge from hospital and quicker recovery time. In this study, we compared EA with LASH by asking women who had either procedure how they felt about it 1 year after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, most women were very satisfied and felt that their symptoms were better. However, the results were much better for those who had the LASH operation, although these women stayed in hospital for longer and took more time to recover. There was no difference in complications from either surgery, although nearly 1 in 20 women who had an EA returned within 1 year to have their wombs removed in a second operation. Although LASH led to a greater improvement in symptoms and levels of satisfaction, it was more expensive in terms of costs incurred by both the health service and society. Given that some women who had an EA are likely to need a second operation in the future, LASH surgery may provide better value for money in the long term.

HEALTH: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus second-generation endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus. While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a 'supracervical' hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn. HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question 'Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?' METHODS/DESIGN: Women aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points. DISCUSSION: Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893 . Registered on 28 January 2014.

Isochromosome 20p associated with multiple congenital abnormalities.

A second case of tetrasomy 20p due to an additional isochromosome 20p is reported. This resulted in a spontaneous intrauterine death with multiple congenital abnormalities. In keeping with the previous report, the foetus had poor ossification resulting in multiple long bone fractures.

A double-blind randomized trial comparing the Cavaterm and the NovaSure endometrial ablation systems for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two second-generation endometrial ablation systems in women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) who want conservative surgical treatment. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized trial. SETTING: A minimal access gynecological surgery unit in northeast England. PATIENT(S): Fifty-seven women diagnosed with DUB were recruited, with 55 undergoing surgery and completing 12-month follow-up. INTERVENTION(S): Thirty-seven women underwent a NovaSure endometrial ablation, and 18 had a Cavaterm endometrial ablation. Clinical and quality of life data were collected 6 and 12 months after treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Amenorrhea, menstrual change, quality of life, sexual activity, patient satisfaction, and procedure acceptability. RESULT(S): Amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, eumenorrhea, and menorrhagia rates for the Cavaterm and Novasure groups at 12 months were 2/18 (11%) vs. 16/37 (43%); 11/18 (61%) vs. 10/37 (27%); 5/18 (27%) vs. 6/37 (16%); and 0/18 vs. 5/37 (13%), respectively. At 12 months, 83% and 92% of women were either satisfied or very satisfied in the Cavaterm or Novasure groups, respectively. There were no major complications in either group. CONCLUSION(S): Both the Cavaterm and the Novasure endometrial ablation systems are effective in reducing menstrual loss in women with DUB and achieve high rates of patient satisfaction. The Novasure system achieved a statistically significantly higher rate of amenorrhea in this study.

Laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect on pain and quality of life for women with all stages of endometriosis undergoing laparoscopic surgery compared with placebo surgery. DESIGN: A randomized, blinded, crossover study. SETTING: A tertiary referral unit in a district general hospital. PATIENT(S): Thirty-nine women with histologically proven endometriosis completed the 12-month study. INTERVENTION(S): Women were randomized to receive initially either a diagnostic procedure (the delayed surgical group) or full excisional surgery (the immediate surgery group). After 6 months, repeat laparoscopy was performed, with removal of any pathology present. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The end points were changes from baseline values of visual analogue pain scores, validated quality-of-life instruments (EQ-5D and SF-12), and sexual activity questionnaire scores. Patients and assessors of outcomes were blinded to the treatment-group assignment. RESULT(S): Significantly more of the 39 women operated on according to protocol reported symptomatic improvement after excisional surgery than after placebo: 16 of 20 (80%) vs. 6 of 19 (32%); chi(2)(1) = 9.3. Other aspects of quality of life were also significantly improved 6 months after excisional surgery but not after placebo. Progression of disease at second surgery was demonstrated for women having only an initial diagnostic procedure in 45% of cases, with disease remaining static in 33% and improving in 22% of cases. Nonresponsiveness to surgery was reported in 20% of cases. CONCLUSION(S): Laparoscopic excision of endometriosis is more effective than placebo at reducing pain and improving quality of life. Surgery is associated with a 30% placebo response rate that is not dependent on severity of disease. Approximately 20% of women do not report an improvement after surgery for endometriosis.

Quality of life should be considered the primary outcome for measuring success of endometrial ablation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and quality of life outcomes by validated instruments after endometrial ablation by four methods, and determine the primary outcome that most reflects procedure success. DESIGN: Descriptive cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Minimal-access gynecologic surgery unit in northeast England. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-nine women. INTERVENTION: Endometrial ablation by one of four methods: Cavaterm, endometrial laser interstitial thermotherapy (ELITT), endometrial laser ablation (ELA), or NovaSure impedance-controlled system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were assessed according to menstrual outcome. Whereas amenorrhea rates were significantly different among the four techniques (chi2 = 9.42, p = 0.02), combined amenorrhea and hypomenorrhea rates were not significantly different (67%, 69%, 69%, 62%, chi2 = 0.38, NS) for Cavaterm, ELITT, ELA, and NovaSure, respectively. Quality of life, measured preoperatively by the EQ-5D index and EQ-5D vas, SF-12 physical and mental component scores, and sexual activity questionnaire pleasure, habit, and discomfort scores, were substantially improved 12 months after treatment. No significant differences were seen in quality of life scores between women after endometrial ablation and the general population. CONCLUSION: Quality of life for women with menorrhagia is improved to a normal level by treatment with either first- or second-generation endometrial ablation.

Pelvic pain scores in women without pelvic pathology.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of and quantify pelvic pain in a group of women without demonstrable pelvic pathology as confirmed by laparoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective observational study (Canadian Task force classification II-2). SETTING: District general hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-three consecutive women undergoing laparoscopy for sterilization, infertility investigation, or assessment of pelvic pain. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Women were asked to complete a questionnaire including a visual analog score for four different types of pelvic pain (dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, dyspareunia, rectal pain) and three quality of life assessments. Forty-three women were excluded due to pelvic pathology. In the 100 remaining women, mean pain scores (maximum 10) were dysmenorrhea 3.77, pelvic pain 1.75, dyspareunia 1.54, and rectal pain 1.07. Quality of life assessment was no different from that in a healthy population in whom the instruments were validated. CONCLUSION: Pelvic pain, principally dysmenorrhea, is common in women of reproductive age. Pain scores may be used to compare treatments for pelvic pain and provide useful information for preoperative counseling.

A randomised controlled trial comparing the Cavaterm endometrial ablation system with the Nd:YAG laser for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the Cavaterm thermal balloon endometrial ablation system with the Nd:YAG laser for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Minimal access gynaecological surgery unit in a district general hospital. POPULATION: Seventy-two women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding requesting conservative surgical management of their condition. METHODS: Women with a normal endometrial biopsy and normal uterine cavity were randomly allocated to endometrial ablation by Cavaterm or Nd:YAG laser. Patients completed pre-operative and 6- and 12-month post-operative questionnaires assessing menstrual symptoms, quality of life, sexual activity and procedural satisfaction and acceptability. All patients received a single dose of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue one month pre-operatively and kept blinded to the procedure performed until after the 6-month assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was amenorrhoea rate. Secondary outcomes were effect on blood loss, quality of life, sexual activity, patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability. RESULTS: Seventy-two women were randomised. Amenorrhoea rates at 12 months in the Cavaterm and endometrial laser ablation groups were 29% vs 39% (P = 0.286), with combined amenorrhoea and hypomenorrhoea rates of 73% vs 69%, respectively. At 12 months, repeat surgery rates were higher in the endometrial laser ablation group (15% vs 12%, P = 0.395). Cavaterm was an acceptable procedure and 93% of patients satisfied or very satisfied at 12 months (95% endometrial laser ablation). Both treatments were associated with an increase from baseline in the SF-12 physical score (Cavaterm mean difference -3.9, 95% CI -7.9, 0.2, ns; endometrial laser ablation mean difference -5.1, 95% CI -9.5, -0.7, P = 0.003) and mental health score (Cavaterm mean difference -5.6, 95% CI -9.9, -1.3, P = 0.001; endometrial laser ablation mean difference -5.9, 95% CI -11.7, -0.2, P = 0.04). Patient's own assessment of health (EQ-5D VAS) improved from baseline in both groups (Cavaterm mean difference -7.6, 95% CI -13.9, -1.3, P = 0.02; endometrial laser ablation mean difference -5.4, 95% CI -14.9, 4.2, ns). EQ-5D index scores also improved (Cavaterm mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.2, 0.005, ns; endometrial laser ablation mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.3, -0.02, P = 0.02). There were no major complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The results with the Cavaterm thermal balloon endometrial ablation system are as good as those obtained with the Nd:YAG laser when used for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding in the short term. It results in a significant reduction in menstrual blood loss, patient satisfaction and improvement in patient quality of life. Larger studies with longer follow up are required to determine its place in the modern treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding.