OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of endometrial resection as a surgical treatment for menorrhagia. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Gynaecology department at a teaching hospital. SUBJECTS:Two hundred women needing surgical treatment for menorrhagia between January 1990 and May 1991. After withdrawal of four women 97 underwent hysterectomy and 99 underwent endometrial resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction 4 months after surgery; post-operative complications; length of hospital stay; duration of time before return to work, normal daily activities and sexual intercourse; change in premenstrual symptoms. RESULTS: The difference in patient satisfaction between endometrial resection (84 out of 99) and abdominal hysterectomy (89 out of 95) just reached statistical significance in favour of abdominal hysterectomy at 4 months after surgery (difference = 9%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.1%-17.5%). Post-operative morbidity, length of hospital stay and time taken to return to work, normal daily activities and sexual intercourse were significantly less in the endometrial resection group. However, the premenstrual symptoms of dysmenorrhoea, bloating and breast tenderness were less frequent after hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: In the short term, endometrial resection was almost as satisfactory as abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia, and was associated with less morbidity. However, even at 4 months after surgery, there was a failure rate of at least 10% in those in whom endometrial resection appeared complete. Longer term comparative studies are necessary before the widespread introduction of endometrial resection as an alternative to abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of endometrial resection as a surgical treatment for menorrhagia. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Gynaecology department at a teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: Two hundred women needing surgical treatment for menorrhagia between January 1990 and May 1991. After withdrawal of four women 97 underwent hysterectomy and 99 underwent endometrial resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction 4 months after surgery; post-operative complications; length of hospital stay; duration of time before return to work, normal daily activities and sexual intercourse; change in premenstrual symptoms. RESULTS: The difference in patient satisfaction between endometrial resection (84 out of 99) and abdominal hysterectomy (89 out of 95) just reached statistical significance in favour of abdominal hysterectomy at 4 months after surgery (difference = 9%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.1%-17.5%). Post-operative morbidity, length of hospital stay and time taken to return to work, normal daily activities and sexual intercourse were significantly less in the endometrial resection group. However, the premenstrual symptoms of dysmenorrhoea, bloating and breast tenderness were less frequent after hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: In the short term, endometrial resection was almost as satisfactory as abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia, and was associated with less morbidity. However, even at 4 months after surgery, there was a failure rate of at least 10% in those in whom endometrial resection appeared complete. Longer term comparative studies are necessary before the widespread introduction of endometrial resection as an alternative to abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia.
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