Microwave endometrial ablation versus endometrial resection: a randomized controlled trial

Christine Bain, K. G. Cooper, David Parkin

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    51 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: To compare menstrual status, satisfaction, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation with transcervical endometrial resection for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

    METHODS: Women were randomized to either endometrial ablative method. Menstrual status, satisfaction, acceptability, and changes in health-related quality of life were obtained by a self-completed questionnaire. Case note review and personal communication identified farther surgery rates at 2 years after each procedure.

    RESULTS: Among the original 263 women who underwent endometrial ablation, 24 (95%) returned questionnaires at 2 years. Menstrual status in both groups was similar, although the amenorrhea rate was higher after microwave endometrial ablation. Seventy-nine percent of women were either completely or generally satisfied after microwave ablation compared with 67% after transcervical endometrial resection. Health-related quality-of-life scores remained higher than at recruitment for both treatments. Hysterectomy rates were similar at 2 years (11.6% after microwave endometrial ablation and 12.7% after transcervical endometrial resection), and no repeat endometrial ablative procedures were required.

    CONCLUSION: Microwave endometrial ablation is an effective alternative to transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. (Obstet Gynecol 2002;99: 983-7. (C) 2002 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)983-987
    Number of pages4
    JournalObstetrics & Gynecology
    Volume99
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Keywords

    • HEALTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
    • HEAVY MENSTRUAL LOSS
    • QUALITY-OF-LIFE
    • ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY
    • LASER-ABLATION
    • SURVEY SF-36
    • MENORRHAGIA
    • MULTICENTER
    • MANAGEMENT
    • OUTCOMES

    Cite this

    Microwave endometrial ablation versus endometrial resection: a randomized controlled trial. / Bain, Christine; Cooper, K. G.; Parkin, David.

    In: Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 99, No. 6, 2002, p. 983-987.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Bain, Christine ; Cooper, K. G. ; Parkin, David. / Microwave endometrial ablation versus endometrial resection: a randomized controlled trial. In: Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002 ; Vol. 99, No. 6. pp. 983-987.
    @article{05b6957ad98e4acb91bc279567e5a09b,
    title = "Microwave endometrial ablation versus endometrial resection: a randomized controlled trial",
    abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare menstrual status, satisfaction, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation with transcervical endometrial resection for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.METHODS: Women were randomized to either endometrial ablative method. Menstrual status, satisfaction, acceptability, and changes in health-related quality of life were obtained by a self-completed questionnaire. Case note review and personal communication identified farther surgery rates at 2 years after each procedure.RESULTS: Among the original 263 women who underwent endometrial ablation, 24 (95{\%}) returned questionnaires at 2 years. Menstrual status in both groups was similar, although the amenorrhea rate was higher after microwave endometrial ablation. Seventy-nine percent of women were either completely or generally satisfied after microwave ablation compared with 67{\%} after transcervical endometrial resection. Health-related quality-of-life scores remained higher than at recruitment for both treatments. Hysterectomy rates were similar at 2 years (11.6{\%} after microwave endometrial ablation and 12.7{\%} after transcervical endometrial resection), and no repeat endometrial ablative procedures were required.CONCLUSION: Microwave endometrial ablation is an effective alternative to transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. (Obstet Gynecol 2002;99: 983-7. (C) 2002 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).",
    keywords = "HEALTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, HEAVY MENSTRUAL LOSS, QUALITY-OF-LIFE, ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY, LASER-ABLATION, SURVEY SF-36, MENORRHAGIA, MULTICENTER, MANAGEMENT, OUTCOMES",
    author = "Christine Bain and Cooper, {K. G.} and David Parkin",
    year = "2002",
    doi = "10.1016/S0029-7844(02)01663-0",
    language = "English",
    volume = "99",
    pages = "983--987",
    journal = "Obstetrics & Gynecology",
    issn = "0029-7844",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "6",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Microwave endometrial ablation versus endometrial resection: a randomized controlled trial

    AU - Bain, Christine

    AU - Cooper, K. G.

    AU - Parkin, David

    PY - 2002

    Y1 - 2002

    N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare menstrual status, satisfaction, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation with transcervical endometrial resection for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.METHODS: Women were randomized to either endometrial ablative method. Menstrual status, satisfaction, acceptability, and changes in health-related quality of life were obtained by a self-completed questionnaire. Case note review and personal communication identified farther surgery rates at 2 years after each procedure.RESULTS: Among the original 263 women who underwent endometrial ablation, 24 (95%) returned questionnaires at 2 years. Menstrual status in both groups was similar, although the amenorrhea rate was higher after microwave endometrial ablation. Seventy-nine percent of women were either completely or generally satisfied after microwave ablation compared with 67% after transcervical endometrial resection. Health-related quality-of-life scores remained higher than at recruitment for both treatments. Hysterectomy rates were similar at 2 years (11.6% after microwave endometrial ablation and 12.7% after transcervical endometrial resection), and no repeat endometrial ablative procedures were required.CONCLUSION: Microwave endometrial ablation is an effective alternative to transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. (Obstet Gynecol 2002;99: 983-7. (C) 2002 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).

    AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare menstrual status, satisfaction, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation with transcervical endometrial resection for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.METHODS: Women were randomized to either endometrial ablative method. Menstrual status, satisfaction, acceptability, and changes in health-related quality of life were obtained by a self-completed questionnaire. Case note review and personal communication identified farther surgery rates at 2 years after each procedure.RESULTS: Among the original 263 women who underwent endometrial ablation, 24 (95%) returned questionnaires at 2 years. Menstrual status in both groups was similar, although the amenorrhea rate was higher after microwave endometrial ablation. Seventy-nine percent of women were either completely or generally satisfied after microwave ablation compared with 67% after transcervical endometrial resection. Health-related quality-of-life scores remained higher than at recruitment for both treatments. Hysterectomy rates were similar at 2 years (11.6% after microwave endometrial ablation and 12.7% after transcervical endometrial resection), and no repeat endometrial ablative procedures were required.CONCLUSION: Microwave endometrial ablation is an effective alternative to transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. (Obstet Gynecol 2002;99: 983-7. (C) 2002 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).

    KW - HEALTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

    KW - HEAVY MENSTRUAL LOSS

    KW - QUALITY-OF-LIFE

    KW - ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY

    KW - LASER-ABLATION

    KW - SURVEY SF-36

    KW - MENORRHAGIA

    KW - MULTICENTER

    KW - MANAGEMENT

    KW - OUTCOMES

    U2 - 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)01663-0

    DO - 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)01663-0

    M3 - Article

    VL - 99

    SP - 983

    EP - 987

    JO - Obstetrics & Gynecology

    JF - Obstetrics & Gynecology

    SN - 0029-7844

    IS - 6

    ER -