Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

  1. Anne Lethaby1,*,
  2. Josien Penninx2,
  3. Martha Hickey3,
  4. Ray Garry4,
  5. Jane Marjoribanks1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group

Published Online: 30 AUG 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 12 JUN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001501.pub4


How to Cite

Lethaby A, Penninx J, Hickey M, Garry R, Marjoribanks J. Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD001501. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001501.pub4.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Auckland, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Auckland, New Zealand

  2. 2

    Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, Netherlands

  3. 3

    The Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  4. 4

    University of Teeside and South Cleveland Hospital, Middlesbrough, Gynaecological Surgery, Guisborough, Yorkshire, UK

*Anne Lethaby, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. a.lethaby@auckland.ac.nz.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 30 AUG 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Funnel plot of comparison: 16 Overall analyses: Second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, outcome: 16.2 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 2 Amenorrhoea/hypomenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 3 MBL at 6 months (descriptive data).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 4 Participant satisfaction at 12 months (very/moderately).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 5 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 6 Operative difficulties (%).
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 7 Good general health (proportion of women).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 8 Improvement in symptoms (proportion of women).
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 9 Improvement in dysmenorrhea.
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 10 Complication rate (proportion of women).
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Laser ablation (first generation) versus transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (first generation), Outcome 11 Requirement for further surgical treatment (within 12 mths).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate at 12 months follow up.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 2 Amenorrhea/hypomenorrhoea rate at 12 months follow up.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 3 PBAC score at 12 mths.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 4 Satisfaction rate at 12 mths (very/moderately).
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 5 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 6 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Vaporising electrode ablation (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 7 Degree of fluid deficit (ml).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Rollerball (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 1 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Rollerball (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 2 Duration of operation (descriptive data).
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Rollerball (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 3 Complication rate.
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Rollerball (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 4 Requirement for further surgery (hyst or ablation).
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Rollerball (first generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 5 Requirement for further surgery rate (hyst only).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Thermal laser (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Thermal laser (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 2 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Thermal laser (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 3 Duration of operation.
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Thermal laser (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 4 Pain score at 12 hrs after surgery (VAS: 1-10).
[Analysis 4.5]
Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Thermal laser (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 5 Intraoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 4.6]
Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Thermal laser (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 6 Requirement for further surgery rate (hyst only).
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 2 PBAC </= 75.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 3 Proportion with "normal" bleeding (PBAC </= 100).
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 4 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 5 Proportion having local anaesthesia (%).
[Analysis 5.6]
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 6 Intraoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 5.7]
Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 7 Postoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 5.8]
Analysis 5.8. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 8 Requirement for further surgery (any surgery).
[Analysis 5.9]
Analysis 5.9. Comparison 5 Hydrothermal ablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 9 Requirement for further surgery rate (hyst only).
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Cryoablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Cryoablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 2 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 Cryoablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 3 Proportion having local anaesthesia (%).
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 Cryoablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 4 Intraoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 6.5]
Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 Cryoablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 5 Requirement for further surgery (any surgery).
[Analysis 6.6]
Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 Cryoablation (second generation) versus rollerball (first generation), Outcome 6 Requirement for further surgery rate (hyst only).
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhea rate at 1 yr follow up.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 2 Proportion with successful Rx (PBAC<75).
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 3 PBAC score 12 months after treatment.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 4 Proportion satisfied with treatment at 1 year.
[Analysis 7.5]
Analysis 7.5. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 5 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 7.6]
Analysis 7.6. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 6 Proportion having local anaesthesia (%).
[Analysis 7.7]
Analysis 7.7. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 7 Intraoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 7.8]
Analysis 7.8. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 8 Postoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 7.9]
Analysis 7.9. Comparison 7 Electrode ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 9 Requirement for further surgery at 2 years (hysterectomy).
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhea rate.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 2 Success of treatment (PBAC<75 or acceptable improvement).
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 3 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 4 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 5 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 8.6]
Analysis 8.6. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 6 Proportion having local anaesthesia.
[Analysis 8.7]
Analysis 8.7. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 7 Duration of hospital stay (hours).
[Analysis 8.8]
Analysis 8.8. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 8 Inability to work (proportion of women).
[Analysis 8.9]
Analysis 8.9. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 9 Change in SF36 score after treatment.
[Analysis 8.10]
Analysis 8.10. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 10 Improvement in symptoms.
[Analysis 8.11]
Analysis 8.11. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 11 Improvement in dysmenorrhoea.
[Analysis 8.12]
Analysis 8.12. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 12 Reduction in pain score (points).
[Analysis 8.13]
Analysis 8.13. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 13 Postoperative analgesia rate.
[Analysis 8.14]
Analysis 8.14. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 14 Intraoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 8.15]
Analysis 8.15. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 15 Postoperative complication rate (wihin 24 hours).
[Analysis 8.16]
Analysis 8.16. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 16 Requirement for further surgery (any surgery).
[Analysis 8.17]
Analysis 8.17. Comparison 8 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus TCRE + rollerball (first generation), Outcome 17 Requirement for further surgery rate (hyst only).
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhea rate.
[Analysis 9.2]
Analysis 9.2. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 2 Amenorrhoea/eumenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 9.3]
Analysis 9.3. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 3 PBAC score after treatment.
[Analysis 9.4]
Analysis 9.4. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 4 Success of treatment (lighter periods and no further surgery).
[Analysis 9.5]
Analysis 9.5. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 5 Success of treatment (PBAC<75).
[Analysis 9.6]
Analysis 9.6. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 6 Success of treatment (menstrual score <185).
[Analysis 9.7]
Analysis 9.7. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 7 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 9.8]
Analysis 9.8. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 8 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 9.9]
Analysis 9.9. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 9 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 9.10]
Analysis 9.10. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 10 Inability to work (proportion of women).
[Analysis 9.11]
Analysis 9.11. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 11 Improvement in dysmenorrhea at 12 months.
[Analysis 9.12]
Analysis 9.12. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 12 Improvement in premenstrual symptoms (from moderate/severe).
[Analysis 9.13]
Analysis 9.13. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 13 Complication rate (proportion of women).
[Analysis 9.14]
Analysis 9.14. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 14 Requirement for further surgery (any surgery).
[Analysis 9.15]
Analysis 9.15. Comparison 9 Balloon endometrial ablation (second generation) versus rollerball endometrial ablation (first generation), Outcome 15 Requirement for further surgery (hyst only).
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 10.2]
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 2 PBAC score after treatment.
[Analysis 10.3]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 3 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 10.4]
Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 4 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 10.5]
Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 5 Euroquol 5D.
[Analysis 10.6]
Analysis 10.6. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 6 Euroquol 5D VAS.
[Analysis 10.7]
Analysis 10.7. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 7 SF12 Physical Scale.
[Analysis 10.8]
Analysis 10.8. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 8 SF12 Mental Scale.
[Analysis 10.9]
Analysis 10.9. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 9 SAQ pleasure scale.
[Analysis 10.10]
Analysis 10.10. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 10 SAQ habit scale.
[Analysis 10.11]
Analysis 10.11. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 11 SAQ discomfort scale.
[Analysis 10.12]
Analysis 10.12. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 12 PMS (visual analogue).
[Analysis 10.13]
Analysis 10.13. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 13 Dysmenorrhoea (visual analogue).
[Analysis 10.14]
Analysis 10.14. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 14 Pain score.
[Analysis 10.15]
Analysis 10.15. Comparison 10 Balloon (second generation) versus laser (first generation), Outcome 15 Requirement for further surgery.
[Analysis 11.1]
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 11.2]
Analysis 11.2. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 2 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 11.3]
Analysis 11.3. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 3 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 11.4]
Analysis 11.4. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 4 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 11.5]
Analysis 11.5. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 5 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 11.6]
Analysis 11.6. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 6 Hospital stay (days).
[Analysis 11.7]
Analysis 11.7. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 7 Duration of hospital stay (hours).
[Analysis 11.8]
Analysis 11.8. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 8 Return to normal activities (days).
[Analysis 11.9]
Analysis 11.9. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 9 Return to normal activities (days).
[Analysis 11.10]
Analysis 11.10. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 10 Intraoperative complications (continuous data).
[Analysis 11.11]
Analysis 11.11. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 11 Intraoperative complications (dichotomous data).
[Analysis 11.12]
Analysis 11.12. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 12 Postoperative pain (continuous data).
[Analysis 11.13]
Analysis 11.13. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 13 Postoperative pain (descriptive data).
[Analysis 11.14]
Analysis 11.14. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 14 Postoperative complications.
[Analysis 11.15]
Analysis 11.15. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 15 Requirement for further surgery.
[Analysis 11.16]
Analysis 11.16. Comparison 11 Balloon (second generation) versus TCRE (first generation), Outcome 16 Requirement for further surgery (hyst only).
[Analysis 12.1]
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 12.2]
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 2 PBAC score after treatment.
[Analysis 12.3]
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 3 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 12.4]
Analysis 12.4. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 4 Duration of operation.
[Analysis 12.5]
Analysis 12.5. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 5 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 12.6]
Analysis 12.6. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 6 Completion of procedure.
[Analysis 12.7]
Analysis 12.7. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 7 SF12 physical score.
[Analysis 12.8]
Analysis 12.8. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 8 SF12 mental score.
[Analysis 12.9]
Analysis 12.9. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 9 SF-36 Physical function score.
[Analysis 12.10]
Analysis 12.10. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 10 SF-36 Role physical.
[Analysis 12.11]
Analysis 12.11. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 11 SF-36 Role emotional.
[Analysis 12.12]
Analysis 12.12. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 12 SF-36 Social functioning.
[Analysis 12.13]
Analysis 12.13. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 13 SF-36 Mental health.
[Analysis 12.14]
Analysis 12.14. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 14 SF-36 Energy/vitality.
[Analysis 12.15]
Analysis 12.15. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 15 SF-36 Pain.
[Analysis 12.16]
Analysis 12.16. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 16 SF-36 General health.
[Analysis 12.17]
Analysis 12.17. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 17 RSCL Physical symptoms.
[Analysis 12.18]
Analysis 12.18. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 18 RSCL Psychological distress.
[Analysis 12.19]
Analysis 12.19. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 19 RSCL Activity level.
[Analysis 12.20]
Analysis 12.20. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 20 RSCL Overall quality of life.
[Analysis 12.21]
Analysis 12.21. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 21 SDS Depression.
[Analysis 12.22]
Analysis 12.22. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 22 Multi-attribute utility tool.
[Analysis 12.23]
Analysis 12.23. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 23 Menorrhagia Outcome Questionnaire.
[Analysis 12.24]
Analysis 12.24. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 24 EQ 5-D utility.
[Analysis 12.25]
Analysis 12.25. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 25 Eq 5-D health thermometer.
[Analysis 12.26]
Analysis 12.26. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 26 Dysmenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 12.27]
Analysis 12.27. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 27 Dysmenorrhoea rate (VAS score).
[Analysis 12.28]
Analysis 12.28. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 28 Improvement in dysmenorrhoea.
[Analysis 12.29]
Analysis 12.29. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 29 PMS rate (VAS score).
[Analysis 12.30]
Analysis 12.30. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 30 Improvement in PMS (emotional).
[Analysis 12.31]
Analysis 12.31. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 31 Improvement in PMS (physical).
[Analysis 12.32]
Analysis 12.32. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 32 Time taken off work (days).
[Analysis 12.33]
Analysis 12.33. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 33 Time to resume normal activities (days).
[Analysis 12.34]
Analysis 12.34. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 34 Postoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 12.35]
Analysis 12.35. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 35 Requirement for further surgery (ablation or hyst).
[Analysis 12.36]
Analysis 12.36. Comparison 12 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 36 Requirement for further surgery (hyst only).
[Analysis 13.1]
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 13.2]
Analysis 13.2. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 2 PBAC score at 12 months follow up.
[Analysis 13.3]
Analysis 13.3. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 3 Satisfaction at 12 months follow up.
[Analysis 13.4]
Analysis 13.4. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 4 Operative difficulties causing failure.
[Analysis 13.5]
Analysis 13.5. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 5 Operation time (mins).
[Analysis 13.6]
Analysis 13.6. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 6 Proportion choosing local anaesthesia.
[Analysis 13.7]
Analysis 13.7. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 7 Proportion requiring opiate analgesia.
[Analysis 13.8]
Analysis 13.8. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 8 Proportion requiring overnight stay.
[Analysis 13.9]
Analysis 13.9. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 9 Quality of life scores: EQ5D.
[Analysis 13.10]
Analysis 13.10. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 10 Quality of life scores: SF12.
[Analysis 13.11]
Analysis 13.11. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 11 Requirement for further surgery at 12 months follow up (hyst only).
[Analysis 13.12]
Analysis 13.12. Comparison 13 Microwave ablation (second generation) versus balloon ablation (second generation), Outcome 12 Pain score at 12 months follow up.
[Analysis 14.1]
Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rates.
[Analysis 14.2]
Analysis 14.2. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 2 Satisfaction.
[Analysis 14.3]
Analysis 14.3. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 3 Absence of dysmenorrhoea.
[Analysis 14.4]
Analysis 14.4. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 4 Duration of procedure (mins).
[Analysis 14.5]
Analysis 14.5. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 5 Postoperative complications.
[Analysis 14.6]
Analysis 14.6. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 6 Requirement for further surgery (any).
[Analysis 14.7]
Analysis 14.7. Comparison 14 Bipolar radiofrequency (second generation) versus hydrothermal ablation (second generation), Outcome 7 Requirement for further surgery (hyst only).
[Analysis 15.1]
Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Ablative curettage versus overcurettage, Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 15.2]
Analysis 15.2. Comparison 15 Ablative curettage versus overcurettage, Outcome 2 Amenorrhoea and normal menses rate.
[Analysis 15.3]
Analysis 15.3. Comparison 15 Ablative curettage versus overcurettage, Outcome 3 Postoperative complications.
[Analysis 15.4]
Analysis 15.4. Comparison 15 Ablative curettage versus overcurettage, Outcome 4 Hospital stay (days).
[Analysis 15.5]
Analysis 15.5. Comparison 15 Ablative curettage versus overcurettage, Outcome 5 Failure rate of procedure.
[Analysis 15.6]
Analysis 15.6. Comparison 15 Ablative curettage versus overcurettage, Outcome 6 Requirement for further surgery (hyst only).
[Analysis 16.1]
Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 1 Amenorrhoea rate.
[Analysis 16.2]
Analysis 16.2. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 2 Satisfaction rate.
[Analysis 16.3]
Analysis 16.3. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 3 Success of treatment (PBAC<75 or acceptable improvement).
[Analysis 16.4]
Analysis 16.4. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 4 Operative difficulties.
[Analysis 16.5]
Analysis 16.5. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 5 Duration of operation (mins).
[Analysis 16.6]
Analysis 16.6. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 6 Proportion having local anaesthesia (%).
[Analysis 16.7]
Analysis 16.7. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 7 Inability to work.
[Analysis 16.8]
Analysis 16.8. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 8 Operative or postoperative complication rate.
[Analysis 16.9]
Analysis 16.9. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 9 Requirement for any additional surgery.
[Analysis 16.10]
Analysis 16.10. Comparison 16 Overall analyses: second-generation endometrial ablation versus first-generation endometrial ablation, Outcome 10 Requirement for further surgery (hyst only).