Patient's Satisfaction, First!

Abstract

The 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 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 (13) Google Scholar ]. Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection Versus Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy Hysterectomy—A Flawed ConclusionJournal of Minimally Invasive GynecologyVol. 23Issue 2PreviewIn their recent article, Zupi et al [1] 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. Full-Text PDF