Endometrial ablation by rollerball electrocoagulation compared to uterine balloon thermal ablation: Technical and safety aspects

Objective: To compare two methods of endometrial ablation, hysteroscopic rollerball electrocoagulation (RBE) and non-hysteroscopic uterine balloon thermal (UBT) ablation (Thermachoice™), regarding intra- and post-operative technical complications and safety aspects. Study design: A randomised contro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2003-10, Vol.110 (2), p.220-223
Hauptverfasser: van Zon-Rabelink, Ingrid A.A., Vleugels, Michel P.H., Merkus, Hans M.W.M., de Graaf, Ruurd
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: To compare two methods of endometrial ablation, hysteroscopic rollerball electrocoagulation (RBE) and non-hysteroscopic uterine balloon thermal (UBT) ablation (Thermachoice™), regarding intra- and post-operative technical complications and safety aspects. Study design: A randomised controlled study in a teaching hospital, 139 pre-menopausal women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding proved by a validated menstrual score list were enclosed. Endometrial ablation by a hysteroscopic or non-hysteroscopic method was performed. Results: Rollerball electrocoagulation carries a significantly higher risk of intra-operative complications compared to uterine balloon thermal ablation and is a significantly more time consuming procedure. Post-operative complication rates in both groups were low, but post-operative analgesics were prescribed significantly more in the uterine balloon group. Conclusion: Endometrial ablation by uterine balloon thermal ablation (Thermachoice™) is a safe and simple non-hysteroscopic procedure.
ISSN:0301-2115
1872-7654
DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00160-X