OBJECTIVE: To estimate the feasibility of local anesthetic endometrial ablation in the office using bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation or thermal balloon ablation technologies and to estimate which procedure alleviates heavy menstrual bleeding and improves quality of life more effectively. METHODS: A single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted based in an office hysteroscopy clinic in a university teaching hospital. Eighty-one women with heavy menstrual bleeding without significant intracavity pathology were randomly allocated to bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation or thermal balloon ablation in an office setting, avoiding use of general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The primary outcome assessed was the rate of amenorrhea at 6 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related data (feasibility, pain, acceptability, complications) and health-related quality of life. RESULTS:Amenorrhea rates were higher at 6 months after surgery with bipolar procedures, but not statistically significant (39% compared with 21%, risk ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 0.9-4.3, P=.1). All bipolar procedures were successfully completed, whereas the treatment cycle was not completed in 2 of 39 (5%) balloon procedures (P>.1) because of patient discomfort. The office bipolar procedure was significantly shorter, by 6.2 minutes on average (P<.001), and associated with more complete coverage of the endometrial surface (88% compared with 58%, P=.002). Health-related quality of life was significantly improved after both treatments. CONCLUSION: Office endometrial ablation using the bipolar radiofrequency or thermal balloon procedures is feasible and effective. The bipolar procedure was significantly quicker and achieved a greater degree of endometrial destruction than the thermal balloon, although there was no significant difference in amenorrhea rates at 6 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124357. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the feasibility of local anesthetic endometrial ablation in the office using bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation or thermal balloon ablation technologies and to estimate which procedure alleviates heavy menstrual bleeding and improves quality of life more effectively. METHODS: A single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted based in an office hysteroscopy clinic in a university teaching hospital. Eighty-one women with heavy menstrual bleeding without significant intracavity pathology were randomly allocated to bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation or thermal balloon ablation in an office setting, avoiding use of general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The primary outcome assessed was the rate of amenorrhea at 6 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related data (feasibility, pain, acceptability, complications) and health-related quality of life. RESULTS:Amenorrhea rates were higher at 6 months after surgery with bipolar procedures, but not statistically significant (39% compared with 21%, risk ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 0.9-4.3, P=.1). All bipolar procedures were successfully completed, whereas the treatment cycle was not completed in 2 of 39 (5%) balloon procedures (P>.1) because of patient discomfort. The office bipolar procedure was significantly shorter, by 6.2 minutes on average (P<.001), and associated with more complete coverage of the endometrial surface (88% compared with 58%, P=.002). Health-related quality of life was significantly improved after both treatments. CONCLUSION: Office endometrial ablation using the bipolar radiofrequency or thermal balloon procedures is feasible and effective. The bipolar procedure was significantly quicker and achieved a greater degree of endometrial destruction than the thermal balloon, although there was no significant difference in amenorrhea rates at 6 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124357. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Authors: Magdalena Bofill Rodriguez; Sofia Dias; Vanessa Jordan; Anne Lethaby; Sarah F Lensen; Michelle R Wise; Jack Wilkinson; Julie Brown; Cindy Farquhar Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-05-31
Authors: Jeffrey D Miller; Gregory M Lenhart; Machaon M Bonafede; Cindy M Basinski; Andrea S Lukes; Kathleen A Troeger Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2015-01-06
Authors: Jeffrey D Miller; Gregory M Lenhart; Machaon M Bonafede; Andrea S Lukes; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 2.459