Combined Endometrial Ablation and Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System Use in Women With Dysmenorrhea and Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Novel Approach for Challenging Cases

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Efstathios P. Papadakis ; MD ; Sherif A. El-Nashar ; MBBCh ; Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso ; MD ; MPH ; Sherif A.M. Shazly ; MBBCh ; Matthew R. Hopkins ; MD ; Daniel M. Breitkopf ; MD ; Abimbola O. Famuyide ; MBBS ; ^{famuyide.abimbola@mayo.edu" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 关键词：Dysmenorrhea ; Endometrial ablation (EA) ; Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) ; Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS)
• 刊名：Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：November-December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：22
• 期：7
• 页码：1203-1207
• 全文大小：364 K

文摘

To evaluate the feasibility and impact of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) on treatment failure after endometrial ablation (EA) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and dysmenorrhea at 4 years.

Design

Cohort study (Canadian Task Force II-2).

Setting

An academic institution in the upper Midwest.

Patients

All women with HMB and dysmenorrhea who underwent EA with combined placement of LNG-IUS (EA/LNG-IUS cohort, 23 women) after 2005 and an historic reference group from women who had EA alone (EA cohort, 65 women) from 1998 through the end of 2005.

Intervention

Radiofrequency EA, thermal balloon ablation, and LNG-IUS.

Measurements and Main Results

The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as persistent pain, bleeding, and hysterectomy after EA at 4 years. The combined treatment failure outcome was documented in 2 patients (8.7%) in the EA/LNG-IUS group and 19 patients (29.2%) in the EA group with an unadjusted OR of .23 (95% CI, .05–1.08). After adjusting for known risk factors of failure, the adjusted OR was .19 (95% CI, .26–.88). None of the women who underwent EA/LNG-IUS had hysterectomy for treatment failure compared with 16 (24%) in the EA group (p = .009); postablation pelvic pain was documented in 1 woman (4.3%) in the EA/LNG-IUS group compared with 8 women (12.3%) in the EA group (p = .24). One woman in the EA/LNG-IUS group (4.3%) presented with persistent bleeding compared with 15 (23.1%) in the EA group (p = .059). Office removal of the intrauterine device was performed in 4 women with no complications.

Conclusion

LNG-IUS insertion at the time of EA is feasible and can provide added benefit after EA in women with dysmenorrhea and HMB.