Incidence and predictors of failed second-generation endometrial ablation.

Q2 Medicine Gynecological Surgery Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-12-15 DOI:10.1186/s10397-017-1030-4
Jordan Klebanoff, Gretchen E Makai, Nima R Patel, Matthew K Hoffman
{"title":"Incidence and predictors of failed second-generation endometrial ablation.","authors":"Jordan Klebanoff,&nbsp;Gretchen E Makai,&nbsp;Nima R Patel,&nbsp;Matthew K Hoffman","doi":"10.1186/s10397-017-1030-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The need for any treatment following an endometrial ablation is frequently cited as \"failed therapy,\" with the two most common secondary interventions being repeat ablation and hysterectomy. Since second-generation devices have become standard of care, no large cohort study has assessed treatment outcomes with regard to only these newer devices. We sought to determine the incidence and predictors of failed second-generation endometrial ablation, defined as the need for surgical re-intervention.We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single academic-affiliated community hospital. Subjects included women undergoing second-generation endometrial ablation for benign indications between October 2003 and March 2016. Second-generation devices utilized during the study period included the radiofrequency ablation device (RFA), hydrothermal ablation device (HTA), and the uterine balloon ablation system (UBA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five thousand nine hundred thirty-six women underwent endometrial ablation at a single institution (3757 RFA (63.3%), 1848 HTA (31.1%), and 331 UBA (5.6%)). The primary outcome assessed was surgical re-intervention, defined as hysterectomy or repeat endometrial ablation. Of the total 927 (15.6%) women who required re-intervention, 822 (13.9%) underwent hysterectomy and 105 (1.8%) underwent repeat endometrial ablation. Women who underwent re-intervention were younger (41.6 versus 42.9 years, <i>p</i> < .001), were more often African-American (21.8% versus 16.2%, <i>p</i> < .001), and were more likely to have had a primary radiofrequency ablation procedure (hazard ratio 1.37; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.86). Older age was associated with decreased risk for treatment failure with women older than 45 years of age having the lowest risk for failure (<i>p</i> < .001). Age between 35 and 40 years conferred the highest risk of treatment failure (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.32-1.92). Indications for re-intervention following ablation included menorrhagia (81.8%), abnormal uterine bleeding (27.8%), polyps/fibroids (18.7%), and pain (9.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgical re-intervention was required in 15.6% of women who underwent second-generation endometrial ablation. Age, ethnicity, and radiofrequency ablation were significant risk factors for failed endometrial ablation, and menorrhagia was the leading indication for re-intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":46311,"journal":{"name":"Gynecological Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s10397-017-1030-4","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecological Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1030-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: The need for any treatment following an endometrial ablation is frequently cited as "failed therapy," with the two most common secondary interventions being repeat ablation and hysterectomy. Since second-generation devices have become standard of care, no large cohort study has assessed treatment outcomes with regard to only these newer devices. We sought to determine the incidence and predictors of failed second-generation endometrial ablation, defined as the need for surgical re-intervention.We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single academic-affiliated community hospital. Subjects included women undergoing second-generation endometrial ablation for benign indications between October 2003 and March 2016. Second-generation devices utilized during the study period included the radiofrequency ablation device (RFA), hydrothermal ablation device (HTA), and the uterine balloon ablation system (UBA).

Results: Five thousand nine hundred thirty-six women underwent endometrial ablation at a single institution (3757 RFA (63.3%), 1848 HTA (31.1%), and 331 UBA (5.6%)). The primary outcome assessed was surgical re-intervention, defined as hysterectomy or repeat endometrial ablation. Of the total 927 (15.6%) women who required re-intervention, 822 (13.9%) underwent hysterectomy and 105 (1.8%) underwent repeat endometrial ablation. Women who underwent re-intervention were younger (41.6 versus 42.9 years, p < .001), were more often African-American (21.8% versus 16.2%, p < .001), and were more likely to have had a primary radiofrequency ablation procedure (hazard ratio 1.37; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.86). Older age was associated with decreased risk for treatment failure with women older than 45 years of age having the lowest risk for failure (p < .001). Age between 35 and 40 years conferred the highest risk of treatment failure (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.32-1.92). Indications for re-intervention following ablation included menorrhagia (81.8%), abnormal uterine bleeding (27.8%), polyps/fibroids (18.7%), and pain (9.5%).

Conclusion: Surgical re-intervention was required in 15.6% of women who underwent second-generation endometrial ablation. Age, ethnicity, and radiofrequency ablation were significant risk factors for failed endometrial ablation, and menorrhagia was the leading indication for re-intervention.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第二代子宫内膜消融失败的发生率及预测因素。
背景:子宫内膜消融后需要进行任何治疗经常被认为是“治疗失败”,两种最常见的二次干预是重复消融和子宫切除术。由于第二代设备已成为标准护理,没有大型队列研究评估仅针对这些新设备的治疗结果。我们试图确定失败的第二代子宫内膜消融的发生率和预测因素,定义为需要手术再干预。我们在一家学术附属社区医院进行了回顾性队列研究。研究对象包括2003年10月至2016年3月期间因良性适应症接受第二代子宫内膜消融的女性。研究期间使用的第二代设备包括射频消融器(RFA)、水热消融器(HTA)和子宫球囊消融器(UBA)。结果:5900 36名女性在同一家机构接受了子宫内膜消融(RFA 3757例(63.3%),HTA 1848例(31.1%),UBA 331例(5.6%))。评估的主要结局是手术再干预,定义为子宫切除术或重复子宫内膜消融。在927名(15.6%)需要再次干预的女性中,822名(13.9%)接受了子宫切除术,105名(1.8%)接受了子宫内膜切除术。接受再干预的女性更年轻(41.6岁vs 42.9岁,p p p)。结论:接受第二代子宫内膜切除术的女性中有15.6%需要再手术干预。年龄、种族和射频消融术是子宫内膜消融术失败的重要危险因素,月经过多是再次干预的主要指征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: "Gynecological Surgery", founded in 2004, is the first and premier peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to all aspects of research, development, and training in gynecological surgery. This field is rapidly changing in response to new developments and innovations in endoscopy, robotics, imaging and other interventional procedures. Gynecological surgery is also expanding and now encompasses all surgical interventions pertaining to women health, including oncology, urogynecology and fetal surgery. The Journal publishes Original Research, Reviews, Evidence-based Viewpoints on clinical protocols and procedures, Editorials, Perspectives, Communications and Case Reports.
期刊最新文献
Defining the limits of caesarean scar niche repair: new anatomical landmarks Is it possible to estimate the need for surgical management in patients with a tubo-ovarian abscess at admission? A retrospective long-term analysis Does hysteroscopy in women with persistent gestational trophoblastic disease reduce the need for chemotherapy? A prospective, single-arm, clinical trial pilot study Medical and surgical interventions to improve the quality of life for endometriosis patients: a systematic review Applied anatomy knowledge in gynaecology and obstetrics: the trainees’ perception
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1