Endometrial ablation

Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology 2003-08, Vol.15 (4), p.327-332
Hauptverfasser: McGurgan, Paul, O'Donovan, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 332
container_issue 4
container_start_page 327
container_title Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology
container_volume 15
creator McGurgan, Paul
O'Donovan, Peter
description Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' commissioned as part of the preparation for this article. The so-called first-generation methods (laser, resection, rollerball) have now got long-term follow-up data of up to 20 years. A few of the second-generation devices have published long-term follow-up data of 5 years. All of the second-generation devices assessed in randomized trials with the first-generation methods compare favourably; however, there are few data on cost effectiveness. Similarly, there are few data comparing endometrial ablation with the Mirena intrauterine device. Conventional endometrial ablation has been extensively validated; however, many of the newer techniques have inadequate patient numbers or lengths of follow-up on which to evaluate their long-term efficacy, safety or cost effectiveness fully. The anticipated decline in hysterectomy rates with the advent of endometrial destruction methods has not occurred, and this may indicate a lower threshold for surgical management.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.gco.0000084244.09900.94
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73472611</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73472611</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cbca1c0e6bd575e5647ac1bdbb58216f44382fc04c6a5e898ec5dd2d02c58c8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0D1PwzAQBmAPIFoKGzNCDGwJd46d2GyoKh9SJRaQ2Cz77KCgfJQ4Gfj3pDRSb7nlfe-kh7FbhBRBF_eA6Rd1KexHCS5ECloDpFqcsCWCgEQV_HPBzmP8BkCuQZ2xBXIlFUK-ZFeb1ndNGPrK1jfW1XaouvaCnZa2juFy3iv28bR5X78k27fn1_XjNqEM5ZCQI4sEIXdeFjLIXBSW0HnnpOKYl0JkipcEgnIrg9IqkPSee-AkFSmbrdjd4e6u737GEAfTVJFCXds2dGM0RSYKniNOwYdDkPouxj6UZtdXje1_DYLZOxhAMzmYo4P5dzBaTOXr-cvomuCP1Rkh-wPnaVso</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73472611</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Endometrial ablation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>McGurgan, Paul ; O'Donovan, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>McGurgan, Paul ; O'Donovan, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' commissioned as part of the preparation for this article. The so-called first-generation methods (laser, resection, rollerball) have now got long-term follow-up data of up to 20 years. A few of the second-generation devices have published long-term follow-up data of 5 years. All of the second-generation devices assessed in randomized trials with the first-generation methods compare favourably; however, there are few data on cost effectiveness. Similarly, there are few data comparing endometrial ablation with the Mirena intrauterine device. Conventional endometrial ablation has been extensively validated; however, many of the newer techniques have inadequate patient numbers or lengths of follow-up on which to evaluate their long-term efficacy, safety or cost effectiveness fully. The anticipated decline in hysterectomy rates with the advent of endometrial destruction methods has not occurred, and this may indicate a lower threshold for surgical management.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-872X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000084244.09900.94</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12858106</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Endometrium - surgery ; Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Humans ; Uterine Hemorrhage - surgery ; Uterine Hemorrhage - therapy</subject><ispartof>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology, 2003-08, Vol.15 (4), p.327-332</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cbca1c0e6bd575e5647ac1bdbb58216f44382fc04c6a5e898ec5dd2d02c58c8a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cbca1c0e6bd575e5647ac1bdbb58216f44382fc04c6a5e898ec5dd2d02c58c8a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12858106$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McGurgan, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Donovan, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Endometrial ablation</title><title>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</title><addtitle>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' commissioned as part of the preparation for this article. The so-called first-generation methods (laser, resection, rollerball) have now got long-term follow-up data of up to 20 years. A few of the second-generation devices have published long-term follow-up data of 5 years. All of the second-generation devices assessed in randomized trials with the first-generation methods compare favourably; however, there are few data on cost effectiveness. Similarly, there are few data comparing endometrial ablation with the Mirena intrauterine device. Conventional endometrial ablation has been extensively validated; however, many of the newer techniques have inadequate patient numbers or lengths of follow-up on which to evaluate their long-term efficacy, safety or cost effectiveness fully. The anticipated decline in hysterectomy rates with the advent of endometrial destruction methods has not occurred, and this may indicate a lower threshold for surgical management.</description><subject>Endometrium - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Uterine Hemorrhage - surgery</subject><subject>Uterine Hemorrhage - therapy</subject><issn>1040-872X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpF0D1PwzAQBmAPIFoKGzNCDGwJd46d2GyoKh9SJRaQ2Cz77KCgfJQ4Gfj3pDRSb7nlfe-kh7FbhBRBF_eA6Rd1KexHCS5ECloDpFqcsCWCgEQV_HPBzmP8BkCuQZ2xBXIlFUK-ZFeb1ndNGPrK1jfW1XaouvaCnZa2juFy3iv28bR5X78k27fn1_XjNqEM5ZCQI4sEIXdeFjLIXBSW0HnnpOKYl0JkipcEgnIrg9IqkPSee-AkFSmbrdjd4e6u737GEAfTVJFCXds2dGM0RSYKniNOwYdDkPouxj6UZtdXje1_DYLZOxhAMzmYo4P5dzBaTOXr-cvomuCP1Rkh-wPnaVso</recordid><startdate>20030801</startdate><enddate>20030801</enddate><creator>McGurgan, Paul</creator><creator>O'Donovan, Peter</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030801</creationdate><title>Endometrial ablation</title><author>McGurgan, Paul ; O'Donovan, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-cbca1c0e6bd575e5647ac1bdbb58216f44382fc04c6a5e898ec5dd2d02c58c8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Endometrium - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Uterine Hemorrhage - surgery</topic><topic>Uterine Hemorrhage - therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGurgan, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Donovan, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGurgan, Paul</au><au>O'Donovan, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Endometrial ablation</atitle><jtitle>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2003-08-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>327</spage><epage>332</epage><pages>327-332</pages><issn>1040-872X</issn><abstract>Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' commissioned as part of the preparation for this article. The so-called first-generation methods (laser, resection, rollerball) have now got long-term follow-up data of up to 20 years. A few of the second-generation devices have published long-term follow-up data of 5 years. All of the second-generation devices assessed in randomized trials with the first-generation methods compare favourably; however, there are few data on cost effectiveness. Similarly, there are few data comparing endometrial ablation with the Mirena intrauterine device. Conventional endometrial ablation has been extensively validated; however, many of the newer techniques have inadequate patient numbers or lengths of follow-up on which to evaluate their long-term efficacy, safety or cost effectiveness fully. The anticipated decline in hysterectomy rates with the advent of endometrial destruction methods has not occurred, and this may indicate a lower threshold for surgical management.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>12858106</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.gco.0000084244.09900.94</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-872X
ispartof Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology, 2003-08, Vol.15 (4), p.327-332
issn 1040-872X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73472611
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Endometrium - surgery
Female
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods
Humans
Uterine Hemorrhage - surgery
Uterine Hemorrhage - therapy
title Endometrial ablation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T08%3A53%3A40IST&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&rft.jtitle=Current%20opinion%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=McGurgan,%20Paul&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=327&rft.epage=332&rft.pages=327-332&rft.issn=1040-872X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.gco.0000084244.09900.94&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73472611%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=73472611&rft_id=info:pmid/12858106&rfr_iscdi=true