Endometrial ablation and resection versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications.

Abstract

To evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endometrial ablation or resection (E:A/R) compared to hysterectomy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Literature-search was performed for all the randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing (E:A/R) versus hysterectomy for the treatment of HMB. The literature-search was last updated in November 2022. The primary outcomes were objective and subjective reduction in HMB and patient-satisfaction rates in improving the bleeding symptoms at 1-14 years. The data were analyzed using Review Manager software. Twelve RCTs with 2,028 women (hysterectomy: n=977 vs. E:A/R: n=1,051) were included. Hysterectomy was compared with endometrial ablation in 5 studies, endometrial resection in 5 studies, and both ablation and resection in 2 studies. The meta-analysis revealed that the hysterectomy group showed improved patient-reported and objective bleeding-symptoms more than those of the EA/R group with risk ratios (RR) of (MD, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.79) and (MD, 44.00; 95% CI, 36.09 to 51.91), respectively. The patient-satisfaction was higher post-hysterectomy up to a follow-up period of 2 years (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.94) but this effect was absent with long term follow-up. This meta-analysis shows that E:A/R offers alternatives to hysterectomy. Although both procedures are highly effective, safe, and improve the quality of life, hysterectomy is significantly superior at improving the bleeding symptoms and patient satisfaction up to two-years. However, hysterectomy is associated with longer operating times and recovery periods and has a higher rate of postoperative complications. The initial cost of E:A/R is less than that of hysterectomy but further surgical requirements are common, therefore there is no difference in the cost for the long term follow-up.