Risk of Hysterectomy After Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT A common gynecological problem for approximately 30% of women at reproductive age in European countries is heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Although hysterectomy is a highly successful treatment for this benign problem, it also risks serious complications due to its nature as a major operation. Less invasive HMB treatment options include insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, medical treatment (such as tranexamic acid and oral contraceptive pill), or endometrial ablation (which aims to destroy endometrial tissue and the superficial myometrium to reduce/stop menstrual bleeding). Endometrial ablation failure may result in the objective outcome of hysterectomy. This meta-analysis and review aimed to assess hysterectomy risk following nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation treatment to improve understanding and HMB patient counseling. Various nonresectoscopic ablation techniques versus their associated hysterectomy rates were investigated, and subgroup analyses were performed. Following a comprehensive and thorough search process of the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases, 53 articles ultimately met the inclusion criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. Between 1992 and 2017, in the included studies, 48,071 patients underwent endometrial ablation. A high risk of bias was found in 13 studies (mainly due to selection or reporting bias), whereas 12 studies maintained low risk of bias. However, exclusion of the 13 high-risk studies for a subgroup analysis yielded similar results to the original meta-analysis. Results of the analysis indicated a consistently increasing post–endometrial ablation hysterectomy, with 2% increments annually between 1 and 5 years following the procedure, rising to 4.3% after 1 year and 12.4% after 5 years. In 2 studies, a post–10-year follow-up found a mean hysterectomy rate of 21.3%. Between both various study designs and the different varieties of devices used, no major differences in hysterectomy rates were found, respectively. Limitations of the review include a high risk for heterogeneity found among studies in almost all analyses utilized by this analysis. Publication bias and methodological issues (variation of population size and study type) lent to the heterogeneity. Because of this variation, the authors performed analyses of subgroups with different study designs. In addition, of the 53 studies included, 15 of them included fewer than 50 participants, which was corrected in this analysis via an inverse variance. Overall, the study indicated that hysterectomy risk following endometrial ablation increases from 4.3% at the 1-year mark to 12.4% at the post–5-year mark. Neither differences in nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation techniques nor study design seemed to affect hysterectomy rates. This systematic review's data can be applied to clinical practice and used for counseling patients about hysterectomy risks within 5 years of endometrial ablation.