A survey of preferences and practices of endometrial ablation/resection for menorrhagia in the United Kingdom
Objective
To survey the preferences and variations in the current use of first- and second-generation endometrial ablative techniques for menorrhagia among the consultant gynecologists in the United Kingdom, given the call for further studies to systematically compare the clinical effectiveness of the various endometrial ablation techniques.
Design
Postal questionnaire survey.
Population
One thousand, four hundred sixty consultant gynecologists in the United Kingdom.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Preferred endometrial ablation/resection method and variations in the current practices.
Result(s)
Six hundred ten (41%) consultants responded. Of these, 449 (73%) performed endometrial ablation/resection. Thermal balloon ablation (32.1%) was the preferred method, followed by microwave endometrial ablation (29.8%), transcervical resection of the endometrial alone or combined with roller ball diathermy (18.5%), Novasure (9.8%), hydrotherm ablation (6.9%), roller ball (2%), and laser (0.9%). Patient response to treatment was assessed using clinical history (64.3%), menstrual calendar (7.6%), clinical history and menstrual calendar (21.3%), questionnaires (5.8%), and pictorial blood loss assessment charts (0.4%). A total of 52.2% used gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues preoperatively. Variations in techniques for transcervical resection of the endometrial included methods used to treat the uterine fundus and cornuae, fluid management, and operating pressures.
Conclusion(s)
Second-generation endometrial ablation devices were preferred to first-generation devices for the management of menorrhagia. Thermal balloon ablation was the most preferred method. However, variations in surgical practices will make assessment of clinical efficacy a challenge.
Key Words: Endometrial ablation, questionnaire, menorrhagia, endometrial resection
To access this article, please choose from the options below
None of the authors have any conflict of interest.
Funding source: School of Human Development, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Abstract accepted for presentation at the British International Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology in London, July 4–6, 2007.
PII: S0015-0282(07)03395-X
doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.052
© 2008 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

