OBJECTIVE: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of endometrial resection and abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of women with menorrhagia. DESIGN: Randomised study of two treatment groups with a minimum follow up of nine months. SETTING: Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading. SUBJECTS: 51 of 78 menorrhagic women without pelvic pathology who were on the waiting list for abdominal hysterectomy. TREATMENT: Endometrial resection or abdominal hysterectomy (according to randomisation). Endometrial resections were performed by an experienced hysteroscopic surgeon; hysterectomies were performed by two other gynaecological surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of operating time, hospitalisation, recovery; cost of surgery; short term results of endometrial resection. RESULTS:Operating time was shorter for endometrial resection (median 30 (range 20-47) minutes) than for hysterectomy (50 (39-74) minutes). The hospital stay for endometrial resection (median 1 (range 1-3) days) was less than for hysterectomy (7 (5-12) days). Recovery after endometrial resection (median 16 (range 5-62) days) was shorter than after hysterectomy (58 (11-125) days). The cost was 407 pounds for endometrial resection and 1270 pounds for abdominal hysterectomy. Four women (16%) who did not have an acceptable improvement in symptoms after endometrial resection had repeat resections. No woman has required hysterectomy during a mean follow up of one year. CONCLUSION: For women with menorrhagia who have no pelvic pathology endometrial resection is a useful alternative to abdominal hysterectomy, with many short term benefits. Larger numbers and a longer follow up are needed to estimate the incidence of complications and the long term efficacy of endometrial resection.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of endometrial resection and abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of women with menorrhagia. DESIGN: Randomised study of two treatment groups with a minimum follow up of nine months. SETTING: Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading. SUBJECTS: 51 of 78 menorrhagic women without pelvic pathology who were on the waiting list for abdominal hysterectomy. TREATMENT: Endometrial resection or abdominal hysterectomy (according to randomisation). Endometrial resections were performed by an experienced hysteroscopic surgeon; hysterectomies were performed by two other gynaecological surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of operating time, hospitalisation, recovery; cost of surgery; short term results of endometrial resection. RESULTS: Operating time was shorter for endometrial resection (median 30 (range 20-47) minutes) than for hysterectomy (50 (39-74) minutes). The hospital stay for endometrial resection (median 1 (range 1-3) days) was less than for hysterectomy (7 (5-12) days). Recovery after endometrial resection (median 16 (range 5-62) days) was shorter than after hysterectomy (58 (11-125) days). The cost was 407 pounds for endometrial resection and 1270 pounds for abdominal hysterectomy. Four women (16%) who did not have an acceptable improvement in symptoms after endometrial resection had repeat resections. No woman has required hysterectomy during a mean follow up of one year. CONCLUSION: For women with menorrhagia who have no pelvic pathology endometrial resection is a useful alternative to abdominal hysterectomy, with many short term benefits. Larger numbers and a longer follow up are needed to estimate the incidence of complications and the long term efficacy of endometrial resection.
Authors: R C Dicker; J R Greenspan; L T Strauss; M R Cowart; M J Scally; H B Peterson; F DeStefano; G L Rubin; H W Ory Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1982-12-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kristen A Matteson; Husam Abed; Thomas L Wheeler; Vivian W Sung; David D Rahn; Joseph I Schaffer; Ethan M Balk Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: L J Middleton; R Champaneria; J P Daniels; S Bhattacharya; K G Cooper; N H Hilken; P O'Donovan; M Gannon; R Gray; K S Khan; J Abbott; J Barrington; S Bhattacharya; M Y Bongers; J-L Brun; R Busfield; M Sowter; T J Clark; J Cooper; K G Cooper; S L Corson; K Dickersin; N Dwyer; M Gannon; J Hawe; R Hurskainen; W R Meyer; H O'Connor; S Pinion; A M Sambrook; W H Tam; I A A van Zon-Rabelink; E Zupi Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-08-16