Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract BACKGROUND Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Human reproduction update 2020-02, Vol.26 (2), p.302-311
Hauptverfasser: Bergeron, Catherine, Laberge, Philippe Y, Boutin, Amélie, Thériault, Marie-Anne, Valcourt, Florence, Lemyre, Madeleine, Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 311
container_issue 2
container_start_page 302
container_title Human reproduction update
container_volume 26
creator Bergeron, Catherine
Laberge, Philippe Y
Boutin, Amélie
Thériault, Marie-Anne
Valcourt, Florence
Lemyre, Madeleine
Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah
description Abstract BACKGROUND Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation or resection with the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and to investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies. SEARCH METHODS We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Biosis and Google Scholar as well as citations and reference lists published up to August 2019. Two authors independently screened 3701 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials published in any language, comparing endometrial ablation or resection to the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity. OUTCOMES Thirteen studies (N = 884) were eligible. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Random effect models were used to compare the modalities and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. No significant differences were observed between endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (primary outcome, risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.11, P = 0.71, I2 = 14%, 12 studies, 726 women), satisfaction, quality of life, amenorrhea and treatment failure. However, side effects were less common in women treated with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71, P  42 years old), although the reduction did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.24, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, 297 women). Fina
doi_str_mv 10.1093/humupd/dmz051
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2347503852</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/humupd/dmz051</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2347503852</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c23893af9019291f1f7d44b089c498bcc19515d44c3ddf7a8eed08542791a9b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtv1TAQhS0Eog9YskVesklrx3ESs0NVeUiV2HQfOfak18iPix-5Cv-Qf4UhLSxZ2TM-_uZoDkJvKLmiRLDrQ3HlqK-1-0E4fYbOadeTpmW9eF7vjPOmG8b-DF2k9I0Q2tNxeInOGBWCMC7O0c9br4ODHI20WM5WZhM8DhFHSKD-FCvEVBK2sAYf4gOkHMFi43OUTckQjQectpTB4aV-zAfAVSGzA59xWPCp8j0-mXzAB5DrhmtZGaUOnC2ANv4BS6-xxBXvavcJquRq8va-Puz46k1VX6uB046rvmUjvbRbMukVerFIm-D143mJ7j_e3t98bu6-fvpy8-GuUaztc6NaNgomF0GoaAVd6DLorpvJKFQnxlkpKjjltaWY1ssgx-qQjLxrB0GlmNklerdjjzF8L3UZkzNJgbXSQyhpalk3cMJG3lZps0tVDClFWKZjNE7GbaJk-h3etIc37eFV_dtHdJkd6L_qp7T-zQ7l-B_WL0W8rFs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2347503852</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bergeron, Catherine ; Laberge, Philippe Y ; Boutin, Amélie ; Thériault, Marie-Anne ; Valcourt, Florence ; Lemyre, Madeleine ; Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</creator><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Catherine ; Laberge, Philippe Y ; Boutin, Amélie ; Thériault, Marie-Anne ; Valcourt, Florence ; Lemyre, Madeleine ; Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract BACKGROUND Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation or resection with the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and to investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies. SEARCH METHODS We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Biosis and Google Scholar as well as citations and reference lists published up to August 2019. Two authors independently screened 3701 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials published in any language, comparing endometrial ablation or resection to the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity. OUTCOMES Thirteen studies (N = 884) were eligible. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Random effect models were used to compare the modalities and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. No significant differences were observed between endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (primary outcome, risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.11, P = 0.71, I2 = 14%, 12 studies, 726 women), satisfaction, quality of life, amenorrhea and treatment failure. However, side effects were less common in women treated with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71, P &lt; 0.001, I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 580 women). Three complications were reported in the endometrial ablation/resection group and none in the LNG-IUS group (P = 0.25). Mean age of the studied populations was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity between studies in subgroup analysis (P = 0.01). In fact, endometrial ablation/resection was associated with a higher risk of subsequent hysterectomy compared to the LNG-IUS in younger populations (mean age ≤ 42 years old, RR = 5.26, 95% CI 1.21 to 22.91, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 189 women). On the contrary, subsequent hysterectomy seemed to be less likely with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS in older populations (mean age &gt; 42 years old), although the reduction did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.24, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, 297 women). Finally, sensitivity analysis taking into account the risk of bias of included studies and type of surgical devices (first and second generation) did not modify the results. Most of the included studies reported outcomes at up to 3 years, and the relative performance of endometrial ablation/resection and LNG-IUS remains unknown in the longer term. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS are two excellent treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding, although women treated with the LNG-IUS are at higher risk of experiencing side effects compared to endometrial ablation/resection. Otherwise, younger women seem to present a lower risk of eventually requiring hysterectomy when treated with the LNG-IUS compared to endometrial ablation/resection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1355-4786</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2369</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz051</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31990359</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Human reproduction update, 2020-02, Vol.26 (2), p.302-311</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c23893af9019291f1f7d44b089c498bcc19515d44c3ddf7a8eed08542791a9b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c23893af9019291f1f7d44b089c498bcc19515d44c3ddf7a8eed08542791a9b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6419-7194</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31990359$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laberge, Philippe Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boutin, Amélie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thériault, Marie-Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valcourt, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemyre, Madeleine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</creatorcontrib><title>Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis</title><title>Human reproduction update</title><addtitle>Hum Reprod Update</addtitle><description>Abstract BACKGROUND Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation or resection with the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and to investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies. SEARCH METHODS We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Biosis and Google Scholar as well as citations and reference lists published up to August 2019. Two authors independently screened 3701 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials published in any language, comparing endometrial ablation or resection to the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity. OUTCOMES Thirteen studies (N = 884) were eligible. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Random effect models were used to compare the modalities and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. No significant differences were observed between endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (primary outcome, risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.11, P = 0.71, I2 = 14%, 12 studies, 726 women), satisfaction, quality of life, amenorrhea and treatment failure. However, side effects were less common in women treated with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71, P &lt; 0.001, I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 580 women). Three complications were reported in the endometrial ablation/resection group and none in the LNG-IUS group (P = 0.25). Mean age of the studied populations was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity between studies in subgroup analysis (P = 0.01). In fact, endometrial ablation/resection was associated with a higher risk of subsequent hysterectomy compared to the LNG-IUS in younger populations (mean age ≤ 42 years old, RR = 5.26, 95% CI 1.21 to 22.91, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 189 women). On the contrary, subsequent hysterectomy seemed to be less likely with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS in older populations (mean age &gt; 42 years old), although the reduction did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.24, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, 297 women). Finally, sensitivity analysis taking into account the risk of bias of included studies and type of surgical devices (first and second generation) did not modify the results. Most of the included studies reported outcomes at up to 3 years, and the relative performance of endometrial ablation/resection and LNG-IUS remains unknown in the longer term. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS are two excellent treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding, although women treated with the LNG-IUS are at higher risk of experiencing side effects compared to endometrial ablation/resection. Otherwise, younger women seem to present a lower risk of eventually requiring hysterectomy when treated with the LNG-IUS compared to endometrial ablation/resection.</description><issn>1355-4786</issn><issn>1460-2369</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkUtv1TAQhS0Eog9YskVesklrx3ESs0NVeUiV2HQfOfak18iPix-5Cv-Qf4UhLSxZ2TM-_uZoDkJvKLmiRLDrQ3HlqK-1-0E4fYbOadeTpmW9eF7vjPOmG8b-DF2k9I0Q2tNxeInOGBWCMC7O0c9br4ODHI20WM5WZhM8DhFHSKD-FCvEVBK2sAYf4gOkHMFi43OUTckQjQectpTB4aV-zAfAVSGzA59xWPCp8j0-mXzAB5DrhmtZGaUOnC2ANv4BS6-xxBXvavcJquRq8va-Puz46k1VX6uB046rvmUjvbRbMukVerFIm-D143mJ7j_e3t98bu6-fvpy8-GuUaztc6NaNgomF0GoaAVd6DLorpvJKFQnxlkpKjjltaWY1ssgx-qQjLxrB0GlmNklerdjjzF8L3UZkzNJgbXSQyhpalk3cMJG3lZps0tVDClFWKZjNE7GbaJk-h3etIc37eFV_dtHdJkd6L_qp7T-zQ7l-B_WL0W8rFs</recordid><startdate>20200228</startdate><enddate>20200228</enddate><creator>Bergeron, Catherine</creator><creator>Laberge, Philippe Y</creator><creator>Boutin, Amélie</creator><creator>Thériault, Marie-Anne</creator><creator>Valcourt, Florence</creator><creator>Lemyre, Madeleine</creator><creator>Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6419-7194</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200228</creationdate><title>Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis</title><author>Bergeron, Catherine ; Laberge, Philippe Y ; Boutin, Amélie ; Thériault, Marie-Anne ; Valcourt, Florence ; Lemyre, Madeleine ; Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c23893af9019291f1f7d44b089c498bcc19515d44c3ddf7a8eed08542791a9b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laberge, Philippe Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boutin, Amélie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thériault, Marie-Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valcourt, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemyre, Madeleine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Human reproduction update</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bergeron, Catherine</au><au>Laberge, Philippe Y</au><au>Boutin, Amélie</au><au>Thériault, Marie-Anne</au><au>Valcourt, Florence</au><au>Lemyre, Madeleine</au><au>Maheux-Lacroix, Sarah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Human reproduction update</jtitle><addtitle>Hum Reprod Update</addtitle><date>2020-02-28</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>302</spage><epage>311</epage><pages>302-311</pages><issn>1355-4786</issn><eissn>1460-2369</eissn><abstract>Abstract BACKGROUND Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation or resection with the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and to investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies. SEARCH METHODS We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Biosis and Google Scholar as well as citations and reference lists published up to August 2019. Two authors independently screened 3701 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials published in any language, comparing endometrial ablation or resection to the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity. OUTCOMES Thirteen studies (N = 884) were eligible. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Random effect models were used to compare the modalities and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. No significant differences were observed between endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (primary outcome, risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.11, P = 0.71, I2 = 14%, 12 studies, 726 women), satisfaction, quality of life, amenorrhea and treatment failure. However, side effects were less common in women treated with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71, P &lt; 0.001, I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 580 women). Three complications were reported in the endometrial ablation/resection group and none in the LNG-IUS group (P = 0.25). Mean age of the studied populations was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity between studies in subgroup analysis (P = 0.01). In fact, endometrial ablation/resection was associated with a higher risk of subsequent hysterectomy compared to the LNG-IUS in younger populations (mean age ≤ 42 years old, RR = 5.26, 95% CI 1.21 to 22.91, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 189 women). On the contrary, subsequent hysterectomy seemed to be less likely with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS in older populations (mean age &gt; 42 years old), although the reduction did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.24, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, 297 women). Finally, sensitivity analysis taking into account the risk of bias of included studies and type of surgical devices (first and second generation) did not modify the results. Most of the included studies reported outcomes at up to 3 years, and the relative performance of endometrial ablation/resection and LNG-IUS remains unknown in the longer term. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS are two excellent treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding, although women treated with the LNG-IUS are at higher risk of experiencing side effects compared to endometrial ablation/resection. Otherwise, younger women seem to present a lower risk of eventually requiring hysterectomy when treated with the LNG-IUS compared to endometrial ablation/resection.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>31990359</pmid><doi>10.1093/humupd/dmz051</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6419-7194</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1355-4786
ispartof Human reproduction update, 2020-02, Vol.26 (2), p.302-311
issn 1355-4786
1460-2369
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2347503852
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T22%3A24%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Endometrial%20ablation%20or%20resection%20versus%20levonorgestrel%20intra-uterine%20system%20for%20the%20treatment%20of%20women%20with%20heavy%20menstrual%20bleeding%20and%20a%20normal%20uterine%20cavity:%20a%20systematic%20review%20with%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Human%20reproduction%20update&rft.au=Bergeron,%20Catherine&rft.date=2020-02-28&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=302&rft.epage=311&rft.pages=302-311&rft.issn=1355-4786&rft.eissn=1460-2369&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/humupd/dmz051&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2347503852%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2347503852&rft_id=info:pmid/31990359&rft_oup_id=10.1093/humupd/dmz051&rfr_iscdi=true