Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection Versus Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy Hysterectomy—A Flawed Conclusion

Abstract

In their recent article, Zupi et al [ 1 Zupi E. Centini G. Lazzeri L. et al. Hysteroscopic endometrial resection versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding: long-term follow-up of a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22: 841-845 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar ] conclude that “because of an improved quality of life and lower reoperation rate, LSH [laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy] should become the treatment of choice in women with abnormal uterine bleeding resistant to medical treatment and should be proposed to all women instead of HEA [hysteroscopic endometrial resection].” In this unfortunate statement, the reader is asked to accept the premise that LSH, a far more invasive procedure with a comparatively protracted recovery period, should be the initial form of surgical therapy for women who have failed to respond to medical management. This conclusion is both unwarranted and strikingly exceeds the study design. Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection Versus Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized TrialJournal of Minimally Invasive GynecologyVol. 22Issue 5PreviewTo compare long-term efficacy of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) and hysteroscopic endometrial ablation (HEA) in treating persistent abnormal uterine bleeding. Full-Text PDF Patient's Satisfaction, First!Journal of Minimally Invasive GynecologyVol. 23Issue 2PreviewThe purpose of our recently published article was to evaluate the long-term follow-up in terms of quality of life of 2 different surgical techniques commonly used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding: hysteroscopic endometrial resection and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) [1]. Full-Text PDF