A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding

Kristen A. Matteson, Husam Abed, Thomas L. Wheeler, Vivian W. Sung, David D. Rahn, Joseph I. Schaffer, Ethan M. Balk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Objective: To compare hysterectomy with less-invasive alternatives for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in 7 clinically important domains. Design: Systematic review. Setting: Randomized clinical trials comparing bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options. Patients: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes. Interventions: Systematic review of the literature (from inception to January 2011) comparing hysterectomy with alternatives for AUB treatment. Eligible trials were extracted into standardized forms. Trials were graded with a predefined 3-level rating, and the strengths of evidence for each outcome were evaluated with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Measurements and Main Results: Nine randomized clinical trials (18 articles) were eligible. Endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, and medications were associated with lower risk of adverse events but higher risk of additional treatments than hysterectomy. Compared to ablation, hysterectomy had superior long-term pain and bleeding control. Compared with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, hysterectomy had superior control of bleeding. No other differences between treatments were found. Conclusion: Less-invasive treatment options for AUB result in improvement in quality of life but carry significant risk of retreatment caused by unsatisfactory results. Although hysterectomy is the most effective treatment for AUB, it carries the highest risk for adverse events.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)13-28
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

Uterine Hemorrhage
Hysterectomy
Levonorgestrel
Hemorrhage
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Medication Systems
Quality of Life
Endometrial Ablation Techniques
Orgasm
Pain
Retreatment
Reproductive Health

Keywords

  • Abnormal uterine bleeding
  • Dysfunctional uterine bleeding
  • Hysterectomy
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding. / Matteson, Kristen A.; Abed, Husam; Wheeler, Thomas L.; Sung, Vivian W.; Rahn, David D.; Schaffer, Joseph I.; Balk, Ethan M.

In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 13-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Matteson, Kristen A. ; Abed, Husam ; Wheeler, Thomas L. ; Sung, Vivian W. ; Rahn, David D. ; Schaffer, Joseph I. ; Balk, Ethan M. / A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding. In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2012 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 13-28.
@article{39c509f7a1d24c329835093127dd330d,
title = "A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding",
abstract = "Study Objective: To compare hysterectomy with less-invasive alternatives for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in 7 clinically important domains. Design: Systematic review. Setting: Randomized clinical trials comparing bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options. Patients: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes. Interventions: Systematic review of the literature (from inception to January 2011) comparing hysterectomy with alternatives for AUB treatment. Eligible trials were extracted into standardized forms. Trials were graded with a predefined 3-level rating, and the strengths of evidence for each outcome were evaluated with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Measurements and Main Results: Nine randomized clinical trials (18 articles) were eligible. Endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, and medications were associated with lower risk of adverse events but higher risk of additional treatments than hysterectomy. Compared to ablation, hysterectomy had superior long-term pain and bleeding control. Compared with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, hysterectomy had superior control of bleeding. No other differences between treatments were found. Conclusion: Less-invasive treatment options for AUB result in improvement in quality of life but carry significant risk of retreatment caused by unsatisfactory results. Although hysterectomy is the most effective treatment for AUB, it carries the highest risk for adverse events.",
keywords = "Abnormal uterine bleeding, Dysfunctional uterine bleeding, Hysterectomy, Systematic review",
author = "Matteson, {Kristen A.} and Husam Abed and Wheeler, {Thomas L.} and Sung, {Vivian W.} and Rahn, {David D.} and Schaffer, {Joseph I.} and Balk, {Ethan M.}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "13--28",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding

AU - Matteson, Kristen A.

AU - Abed, Husam

AU - Wheeler, Thomas L.

AU - Sung, Vivian W.

AU - Rahn, David D.

AU - Schaffer, Joseph I.

AU - Balk, Ethan M.

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - Study Objective: To compare hysterectomy with less-invasive alternatives for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in 7 clinically important domains. Design: Systematic review. Setting: Randomized clinical trials comparing bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options. Patients: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes. Interventions: Systematic review of the literature (from inception to January 2011) comparing hysterectomy with alternatives for AUB treatment. Eligible trials were extracted into standardized forms. Trials were graded with a predefined 3-level rating, and the strengths of evidence for each outcome were evaluated with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Measurements and Main Results: Nine randomized clinical trials (18 articles) were eligible. Endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, and medications were associated with lower risk of adverse events but higher risk of additional treatments than hysterectomy. Compared to ablation, hysterectomy had superior long-term pain and bleeding control. Compared with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, hysterectomy had superior control of bleeding. No other differences between treatments were found. Conclusion: Less-invasive treatment options for AUB result in improvement in quality of life but carry significant risk of retreatment caused by unsatisfactory results. Although hysterectomy is the most effective treatment for AUB, it carries the highest risk for adverse events.

AB - Study Objective: To compare hysterectomy with less-invasive alternatives for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in 7 clinically important domains. Design: Systematic review. Setting: Randomized clinical trials comparing bleeding, quality of life, pain, sexual health, satisfaction, need for subsequent surgery, and adverse events between hysterectomy and less-invasive treatment options. Patients: Women with AUB, predominantly from ovulatory disorders and endometrial causes. Interventions: Systematic review of the literature (from inception to January 2011) comparing hysterectomy with alternatives for AUB treatment. Eligible trials were extracted into standardized forms. Trials were graded with a predefined 3-level rating, and the strengths of evidence for each outcome were evaluated with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Measurements and Main Results: Nine randomized clinical trials (18 articles) were eligible. Endometrial ablation, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, and medications were associated with lower risk of adverse events but higher risk of additional treatments than hysterectomy. Compared to ablation, hysterectomy had superior long-term pain and bleeding control. Compared with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, hysterectomy had superior control of bleeding. No other differences between treatments were found. Conclusion: Less-invasive treatment options for AUB result in improvement in quality of life but carry significant risk of retreatment caused by unsatisfactory results. Although hysterectomy is the most effective treatment for AUB, it carries the highest risk for adverse events.

KW - Abnormal uterine bleeding

KW - Dysfunctional uterine bleeding

KW - Hysterectomy

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84455169527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84455169527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.005

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 13

EP - 28

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 1

ER -