Five-year follow up of women randomised to medical management or transcervical resection of the endometrium for heavy menstrual loss: clinical and quality of life outcomes

Objective To assess clinical status, changes in health related quality of life, and subsequent management five years after medical management or transcervical resection of the endometrium for treatment of heavy menstrual loss.

Design Five year follow up using postal questionnaires and operative databank review.

Setting Gynaecology department of a large UK teaching hospital.

Population Women referred to the gynaecologist for treatment of heavy menstrual loss.

Methods Eligible women, without a treatment preference, were randomised equally to either medical treatment or transcervical resection of the endometrium.

Main outcome measures Women's satisfaction with treatment, menstrual status, changes in health related quality of life, and additional treatments received at five years.

Results One hundred and forty-four patients completed questionnaires, achieving 77% follow up (medical n=71/94; transcervical resection of the endometrium n=73/93). At five-year follow up, 7/71 (10%) of those randomised to the medical arm still used medical treatment, while 72/94 (77%) had undergone surgical treatment and 17/94 (18%) a hysterectomy. Twenty-five (27%) women allocated to transcervical resection of the endometrium had undergone further surgery, 18/93 (19%) a hysterectomy. At five years women initially randomised to medical treatment were significantly less likely to be totally satisfied (P<0.01, difference 21%, 95% CI –37% to –4%), or to recommend their allocated treatment to a friend (P<0.001, difference 59%, 95% CI –73% to –45%). Bleeding and pain scores were similar in both groups and highly significantly reduced. Significantly more women in the transcervical resection of the endometrium arm had no bleeding or very light bleeding (P<0.02, difference -22%, CI –31% to –4%), and they had significantly less days heavy bleeding (P<0.02). Short Form 36 health survey scores were significantly improved from baseline for all eight health scales in the transcervical resection of the endometrium arm, and four in the medical arm.

Conclusions A policy of immediate transcervical resection of the endometrium for women referred to a gynaecologist for treatment of heavy menstrual loss achieves higher levels of satisfaction, better menstrual status, and greater improvements in health related quality of life than medical treatment. In addition, transcervical resection of the endometrium is safe and does not lead to an increase in the number of hysterectomies. An effective endometrial ablative technique should be offered to all eligible women seeking treatment of their heavy menses from a gynaecologist.