Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Abstract

At present, there have been no standard research outcomes as to whether the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or thermal balloon ablation (TBA) is superior for the treatment of patients suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Therefore, in the present study, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness and affordability of the LNG-IUS with TBA in the treatment of HMB. A literature search of the following electronic databases was conducted: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, the Chinese Scientific Journals Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure; and a statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Seven RCTs involving 467 patients (235 LNG-IUS, 232 TBA) met the inclusion criteria for the present study. As assessed by pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) scores, the LNG-IUS significantly reduced menstrual bleeding after 24 months [standardized mean difference (SMD), −0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), −1.22 to −0.50; P<0.00001]. Furthermore, the total treatment cost of the LNG-IUS was lower than that of TBA (SMD, −2.35; 95% CI, −2.98 to −1.72; P<0.00001). However, at the 24 month follow-up, side effects such as amenorrhea occurred more frequently in patients treated with the LNG-IUS, as compared with TBA (relative risk, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.46–4.25; P=0.0008). No significant differences in hemoglobin levels and quality of life were demonstrated between the two treatment groups. The results of the present meta-analysis suggest that the LNG-IUS may be more effective and affordable than TBA as a long-term treatment (24 months) for HMB. However, following 12–24 months of treatment, side effects such as amenorrhea may be more frequent in patients treated with the LNG-IUS. When considering short-term treatment for HMB, controversy remains regarding the two methods and further studies are required to precisely evaluate the outcomes.