Retrospective study on the outcomes and satisfaction with endometrial ablation by bipolar energy (NovaSure
Bipolar energy
Endometrial ablation
Heavy menstrual bleeding
NovaSure®
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Sep 2024
13 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
03
08
2023
accepted:
28
08
2024
medline:
13
9
2024
pubmed:
13
9
2024
entrez:
13
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To determine the effectiveness, safety, and participant satisfaction with endometrial ablation by bipolar energy (NovaSure Multicenter retrospective observational study based on medical record review of the outcomes related to endometrial ablation by the bipolar-energy technique procedure to treat HMB in the setting of three university teaching hospitals in Spain. A total of 333 women were included in the study. Most bipolar-energy ablations were successful (85.12%; n = 269 out of 316), with amenorrhea the most frequent outcome (39.6%, n = 131 out of 316). The majority of participants had no complications (95.5%; n = 317 out of 332), and of those who did, only 2.1% were related to the technique. No further treatment was required for HMB in 82.8% of women (n = 274 out of 331), and surgery was avoided in 91.8%; only 5.9% of women underwent ablation-related hysterectomy. In women with previous transverse cesarean sections (CS), 91.0% avoided subsequent surgical treatment. Eighty-six percent of women (n = 221 out of 257) were satisfied with the procedure. Bipolar-energy ablation is very effective and safe for the treatment of HMB and yielded a high rate of participant satisfaction in our setting. The presence of comorbidities or previous CS may slightly reduce the effectiveness of the method, while performing concomitant surgery (mainly curettage) increases the rate of complications. Notably, despite the known increased risk of hysterectomy, most participants with previous CSs who underwent ablation avoided major surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39269466
doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07726-5
pii: 10.1007/s00404-024-07726-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines (2021) Heavy menstrual bleeding: assessment and management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
Parra JF, López CA, Morales SM (2020) Actualización sobre el sangrado menstrual abundante. Progresos de obstetricia y ginecología: revista oficial de la Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia 63(2):68–80
Criterios médicos de elegibilidad para el uso de anticonceptivos. 4ª edición2009.
Bongers MY (2007) Second-generation endometrial ablation treatment: Novasure. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 21(6):989–994
doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2007.03.024
pubmed: 17490913
Elmardi A, Furara S, Khan F, Hamza M (2009) NovaSure impedance controlled system for endometrial ablation: the experience of the first UK reference centre. J Obstet Gynaecol 29(5):419–422
doi: 10.1080/01443610902932291
pubmed: 19603322
Kalkat RK, Cartmill RS (2011) NovaSure endometrial ablation under local anaesthesia in an outparticipant setting: an observational study. J Obstet Gynaecol 31(2):152–155
doi: 10.3109/01443615.2010.538772
pubmed: 21281033
Scordalakes C, DelRosario R, Shimer A, Stankiewicz R (2018) Efficacy and participant satisfaction after NovaSure and minerva endometrial ablation for treating abnormal uterine bleeding: a retrospective comparative study. Int J Women’s Health 10:137–145
doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S153699
Xie H, Wan Y, Yi S, Zeng F, Sun X, Yang Y et al (2022) Clinical analysis of 2152 cases of abnormal uterine bleeding treated by NovaSure endometrial ablation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 158(2):301–307
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13983
pubmed: 34653258
Weibel S, Neubert K, Jelting Y, Meissner W, Wöckel A, Roewer N et al (2016) Incidence and severity of chronic pain after caesarean section: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 33(11):853–865
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000535
pubmed: 27635953
Khan Z, El-Nashar SA, Hopkins MR, Famuyide AO (2011) Efficacy and safety of global endometrial ablation after cesarean delivery: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205(5):450.e1–4
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.106
pubmed: 21907960
Lybol C, van der Coelen S, Hamelink A, Bartelink LR, Nieboer TE (2018) Predictors of long-term novasure endometrial ablation failure. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(7):1255–1259
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.006
pubmed: 29550389
Basinski CM, Price P, Burkhart J, Johnson J (2012) Safety and effectiveness of NovaSure
doi: 10.1089/gyn.2011.0061
pubmed: 24761128
pmcid: 3827860
Ghoubara A, Gunasekera S, Rao L, Ewies A (2022) Re-intervention and participant satisfaction rates following office radiofrequency endometrial ablation: a comparative retrospective study of 408 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol 42(5):1358–1364
doi: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1965560
pubmed: 34689685
Oderkerk TJ, Beelen P, Bukkems ALA, Van Kuijk SMJ, Sluijter HMM, van de Kar MRD et al (2023) Risk of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 142(1):51–60
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005223
pubmed: 37290114
Unger HW, Megaly E, Dick A, Horne AW, Milne S, West C (2014) Women’s satisfaction and symptoms following NovaSure endometrial ablation: a postal questionnaire survey in Lothian, Scotland. J Obstet Gynaecol 34(4):350–351
doi: 10.3109/01443615.2013.876395
pubmed: 24484297