Microwave Endometrial Ablation vs. Rollerball Electroablation for Menorrhagia: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Dr. Jay M. Cooper M.D. , Dr. Ted L. Anderson M.D., Ph.D. , Dr. Claude A. Fortin M.D. , Dr. Stuart A. Jack M.D. , Ms Maria B. Plentl M.S.N., W.H.N.P.
{"title":"Microwave Endometrial Ablation vs. Rollerball Electroablation for Menorrhagia: A Multicenter Randomized Trial","authors":"Dr. Jay M. Cooper M.D. ,&nbsp;Dr. Ted L. Anderson M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Dr. Claude A. Fortin M.D. ,&nbsp;Dr. Stuart A. Jack M.D. ,&nbsp;Ms Maria B. Plentl M.S.N., W.H.N.P.","doi":"10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60057-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) with those of rollerball electroablation (REA) for the treatment of menorrhagia.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomized clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Eight academic medical centers and private medical practices.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>Three hundred twenty-two women with documented menorrhagia due to benign causes.</p></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><p>MEA or REA.</p></div><div><h3>Measurements and Main Results</h3><p>By intent-to-treat analysis, the success rate of MEA at 12 months (87.0%; CI 81.7%–91.2%) did not differ significantly (p = .40) from that of REA (83.2%; CI 74.7%–89.7%). Among evaluable patients, success rate was also similar (p = .24) in the MEA (96.4%; CI 92.7%–98.5%) and REA (92.7%; CI 85.6%–97%) groups. The amenorrhea rate in evaluable patients after MEA was 61.3% (CI 54.1%–68.2%). In patients with myomas, the success and amenorrhea rates in evaluable patients after MEA were 90.3% (CI 74.2%–98%) and 61.3% (CI 42.2%–78.2%), respectively. In evaluable patients with body mass index of 30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> or greater, MEA success rate was 96.7% (CI 88.5%–99.6%) compared with 81.8% (CI 59.7%–94.8%) for REA (p = .042). The ablation procedure was performed under IV sedation in 62% of patients in the MEA group versus 18% of patients in the REA group (p &lt;.001); whereas, general anesthesia was employed more often in patients undergoing REA (37% vs. 76%, p &lt;.001). No major complications were encountered. Patient satisfaction with results of treatment was high (98.5% of the MEA and 99.0% of the REA group).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Microwave endometrial ablation is an efficacious and safe procedure for the treatment of menorrhagia. Over half of patients treated with MEA achieve amenorrhea, and the procedure is suitable for women with myomas and irregular uterine cavities. The procedure is easily learned and can be performed rapidly, under IV sedation in most cases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79466,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists","volume":"11 3","pages":"Pages 394-403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60057-6","citationCount":"54","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074380405600576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 54

Abstract

Study Objective

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) with those of rollerball electroablation (REA) for the treatment of menorrhagia.

Design

Randomized clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).

Setting

Eight academic medical centers and private medical practices.

Patients

Three hundred twenty-two women with documented menorrhagia due to benign causes.

Intervention

MEA or REA.

Measurements and Main Results

By intent-to-treat analysis, the success rate of MEA at 12 months (87.0%; CI 81.7%–91.2%) did not differ significantly (p = .40) from that of REA (83.2%; CI 74.7%–89.7%). Among evaluable patients, success rate was also similar (p = .24) in the MEA (96.4%; CI 92.7%–98.5%) and REA (92.7%; CI 85.6%–97%) groups. The amenorrhea rate in evaluable patients after MEA was 61.3% (CI 54.1%–68.2%). In patients with myomas, the success and amenorrhea rates in evaluable patients after MEA were 90.3% (CI 74.2%–98%) and 61.3% (CI 42.2%–78.2%), respectively. In evaluable patients with body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater, MEA success rate was 96.7% (CI 88.5%–99.6%) compared with 81.8% (CI 59.7%–94.8%) for REA (p = .042). The ablation procedure was performed under IV sedation in 62% of patients in the MEA group versus 18% of patients in the REA group (p <.001); whereas, general anesthesia was employed more often in patients undergoing REA (37% vs. 76%, p <.001). No major complications were encountered. Patient satisfaction with results of treatment was high (98.5% of the MEA and 99.0% of the REA group).

Conclusion

Microwave endometrial ablation is an efficacious and safe procedure for the treatment of menorrhagia. Over half of patients treated with MEA achieve amenorrhea, and the procedure is suitable for women with myomas and irregular uterine cavities. The procedure is easily learned and can be performed rapidly, under IV sedation in most cases.

微波子宫内膜消融与滚轴电消融治疗月经过多:一项多中心随机试验
研究目的比较微波子宫内膜消融(MEA)与滚轴电消融(REA)治疗月经过多的有效性、安全性和可接受性。设计随机临床试验(加拿大特别工作组分类I)。设置8个学术医疗中心和私人医疗实践。患者:322名女性因良性原因月经过多。干预mea或REA。经意向治疗分析,12个月MEA的成功率为87.0%;CI 81.7%-91.2%)与REA (83.2%;CI 74.7% - -89.7%)。在可评估的患者中,MEA的成功率也相似(p = 0.24) (96.4%;CI 92.7% - 98.5%)和REA (92.7%;CI 85.6%-97%)组。可评估患者经MEA后闭经率为61.3% (CI 54.1%-68.2%)。在肌瘤患者中,MEA后可评估患者的成功率和闭经率分别为90.3% (CI 74.2%-98%)和61.3% (CI 42.2%-78.2%)。在可评估的体重指数为30 kg/m2或更高的患者中,MEA的成功率为96.7% (CI 88.5%-99.6%),而REA的成功率为81.8% (CI 59.7%-94.8%) (p = 0.042)。62%的MEA组患者在静脉镇静下进行消融,而18%的REA组患者在静脉镇静下进行消融(p < 0.001);而全麻更常用于REA患者(37%对76%,p <.001)。无重大并发症。患者对治疗结果的满意度较高(MEA组为98.5%,REA组为99.0%)。结论微波子宫内膜消融术治疗月经过多是一种安全有效的方法。超过一半的经MEA治疗的患者实现闭经,该程序适用于子宫肌瘤和不规则子宫腔的妇女。该过程易于学习,并可快速完成,在大多数情况下静脉镇静。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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