Journals / Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association / 2020 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1

Long-term outcome of endometrial ablation therapy with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding

Pages
1–9
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The patient satisfaction rate was favorable. (J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2020; 21: 1-9)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of endometrial ablation (EA) therapy with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).Material and Methods: The retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on 209 patients who referred to Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd, Iran between March 2010 and September 2017 with AUB undergoing EA therapy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The primary and secondary outcomes post EA therapy (from six months to seven years post-operatively) were assessed in patients.Results: The mean age of participants was 45.9±5.9 years and the mean follow-up duration was 21.2±13.2 months.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The patient satisfaction rate was favorable. (J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2020; 21: 1-9)
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of endometrial ablation (EA) therapy with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).Material and Methods: The retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on 209 patients who referred to Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd, Iran between March 2010 and September 2017 with AUB undergoing EA therapy. The data was collected by a questionnaire from the medical records of patients and phone call. The primary and secondary outcomes post EA therapy (from six months to seven years post-operatively) were assessed in patients.Results: The mean age of participants was 45.9±5.9 years and the mean follow-up duration was 21.2±13.2 months. The rate of treatment response was 95% in the first six months and 92.1% thereafter. The prevalence of amenorrhea was 41.2%. The patient satisfaction rate at the end of follow-up duration was 81.3%. Dysmenorrhea completely resolved in 32.6%. Moreover, 1.4% of patients became pregnant during follow-up. By the end of follow-up, four (1.9%) patients had a hysterectomy due directly to treatment failure.Conclusion: This study showed that EA surgery with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon was an effective treatment for AUB. The procedure was safe and was associated with a very low rate of postoperative adverse events. The patient satisfaction rate was favorable. (J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2020; 21: 1-9)

🔖

Cite This Article

KARİMİ-ZARCHİ, M., FATHİ, M., TABATABAİE, A., SHAMSİ, F., ALLAHQOLİ, L., ZANBAGH, L., HASHEMİPOUR, S. M. A., METTLER, L. (2022). Long-term outcome of endometrial ablation therapy with Cavaterm Thermal Balloon in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1, 1–9. https://ajindex.com/articles/567405

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Brun JL, Raynal J, Burlet G, Galand B, Quéreux C, Bernard P. Cavaterm thermal balloon endometrial ablation versus hysteroscopic endometrial resection to treat menorrhagia: the French, multicenter, randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006; 13: 424-30
  2. Penninx JP, Herman MC, Kruitwagen RF, Ter Haar AJ, Mol BW, Bongers MY. Bipolar versus balloon endometrial ablation in the office: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 196: 52-6
  3. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xia Z, Peterson HB. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988-1990. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83: 549-55
  4. Matteson KA, Abed H, Wheeler TL 2nd, Sung VW, Rahn DD, Schaffer JI, et al. A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012; 19: 13-28
  5. Karimi-Zarchi M, Dehghani-Firoozabadi R, Tabatabaie A, Dehghani-Firoozabadi Z, Teimoori S, Chiti Z, et al. A comparison of the effect of levonorgestrel IUD with oral medroxyprogesterone acetate on abnormal uterine bleeding with simple endometrial hyperplasia and fertility preservation. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2013; 40: 421-4
  6. Fulop T, Rákóczi I, Barna I. NovaSure impedance controlled endometrial ablation: long-term follow-up results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007; 14: 85-90
  7. Nagele F, Rubinger T, Magos A. Why do women choose endometrial ablation rather than hysterectomy? Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 1063-6
  8. Middleton LJ, Champaneria R, Daniels JP, Bhattacharya S, Cooper KG, Hilken NH, et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients. BMJ 2010; 341: 3929
  9. Blanc B. Nutritional anemias. Report of a WHO scientific group. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1968; 405: 1-40
  10. Larroy C. Comparing visual-analog and numeric scales for assessing menstrual pain. Behav Med 2002; 27: 179-81
  11. Asgari Z, Hoseinzadeh F, Hoseinzadeh A, Hafizi L. Evaluation of the success rate of endometrial ablation by cavatermTM plus technique. J Minim Invasive Surg Sci 2014; 3: 12431
  12. Famuyide A. Endometrial sblation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2018; 25: 299-307
  13. Harmon M, Kasbekar AV, Sinha A, Andrews V. Does the working temperature affect the outcome following microwave endometrial ablation? Ir J Med Sci 2017; 186: 399-401
  14. Rosati M, Vigone A, Capobianco F, Surico D, Amoruso E, Surico N. Long-term