Histologic Comparison of Ablative Techniques for Endometriosis: A Randomized Trial

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
D Namaky , M Carrel-Lammert , J Hoehn , J Yeung
{"title":"Histologic Comparison of Ablative Techniques for Endometriosis: A Randomized Trial","authors":"D Namaky ,&nbsp;M Carrel-Lammert ,&nbsp;J Hoehn ,&nbsp;J Yeung","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2025.09.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>To compare ablative energy technologies and evaluate their ability to destroy native endometriosis tissue in humans.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Prospective, randomized, triple-arm, single-blind, clinical trial.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio.</div></div><div><h3>Patients or Participants</h3><div>Women undergoing excision of lesions for pelvic pain symptoms or endometriosis by a high-volume minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>During the already planned excision of lesions, just prior to excision, identified lesions were uniquely numbered and randomized to ablative treatment with either 1) electrical diathermy, 2) Argon beam coagulation, or 3) CO<sub>2</sub> laser. The lesions were ablated with the assigned technologies. Excision of the ablated lesions was then performed for pathologic evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Primary Results</h3><div>The primary outcome was the frequency of positive histology for endometriosis within the ablated surgical specimens. Sample size was calculated in advance to be 140 samples, which would provide power of 0.8 and significance of 0.0167. A total of 153 samples of ablated lesions were excised and collected from a total of 34 patients, with 51 samples in each of the three surgical technology arms. Overall, 20 (13%) of the ablated lesions still contained endometriosis identified on pathology after subsequent excision. Stratified by treatment arm, the numbers of specimens that remained endometriosis-positive after ablative treatment were 10 (20%) for electrical diathermy, 4 (8%) for Argon beam coagulation, and 6 (12%) for CO<sub>2</sub> Laser (p=0.20).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Endometriosis lesions are incompletely treated at similar rates with electrical diathermy, Argon beam coagulation, or CO<sub>2</sub> laser. Excision of these areas post-ablation removes more disease. Histologic effectiveness of these treatments stratified by stage or depth of lesions remains to be elucidated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":"32 11","pages":"Page S11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465025003498","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study Objective

To compare ablative energy technologies and evaluate their ability to destroy native endometriosis tissue in humans.

Design

Prospective, randomized, triple-arm, single-blind, clinical trial.

Setting

Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Patients or Participants

Women undergoing excision of lesions for pelvic pain symptoms or endometriosis by a high-volume minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon.

Interventions

During the already planned excision of lesions, just prior to excision, identified lesions were uniquely numbered and randomized to ablative treatment with either 1) electrical diathermy, 2) Argon beam coagulation, or 3) CO2 laser. The lesions were ablated with the assigned technologies. Excision of the ablated lesions was then performed for pathologic evaluation.

Measurements and Primary Results

The primary outcome was the frequency of positive histology for endometriosis within the ablated surgical specimens. Sample size was calculated in advance to be 140 samples, which would provide power of 0.8 and significance of 0.0167. A total of 153 samples of ablated lesions were excised and collected from a total of 34 patients, with 51 samples in each of the three surgical technology arms. Overall, 20 (13%) of the ablated lesions still contained endometriosis identified on pathology after subsequent excision. Stratified by treatment arm, the numbers of specimens that remained endometriosis-positive after ablative treatment were 10 (20%) for electrical diathermy, 4 (8%) for Argon beam coagulation, and 6 (12%) for CO2 Laser (p=0.20).

Conclusion

Endometriosis lesions are incompletely treated at similar rates with electrical diathermy, Argon beam coagulation, or CO2 laser. Excision of these areas post-ablation removes more disease. Histologic effectiveness of these treatments stratified by stage or depth of lesions remains to be elucidated.
子宫内膜异位症消融技术的组织学比较:一项随机试验
研究目的比较烧蚀能量技术对人子宫内膜异位症的破坏能力。前瞻性、随机、三组、单盲临床试验。俄亥俄州辛辛那提的好撒玛利亚人医院因盆腔疼痛症状或子宫内膜异位症接受大容量微创妇科外科手术的患者或参与者。干预措施:在已经计划好的病灶切除过程中,就在切除之前,确定的病灶被唯一编号并随机分配到消融治疗中,包括1)电透疗,2)氩气束凝固或3)CO2激光。病变用指定的技术消融。然后切除消融病变进行病理评估。测量和主要结果主要结果是消融手术标本中子宫内膜异位症组织学阳性的频率。事先计算样本量为140个样本,幂值为0.8,显著性为0.0167。共从34例患者中切除和收集了153个消融病灶样本,三个手术技术臂各有51个样本。总体而言,20例(13%)的消融病灶在随后的切除后病理上仍含有子宫内膜异位症。按治疗组分层,消融治疗后仍有子宫内膜异位症阳性的标本数为电透治疗10例(20%),氩气束凝固治疗4例(8%),CO2激光治疗6例(12%)(p=0.20)。结论电透、氩束凝血和CO2激光治疗子宫内膜异位症的不完全治疗率相近。在消融后切除这些区域可以去除更多的疾病。这些治疗的组织学效果,分层的阶段或深度的病变仍有待阐明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信