Grace Yeung

Endometrial Ablation in the Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding

BACKGROUND Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is the direct cause of a significant health care burden for women, their families, and society as a whole. Up to 30% of women will seek medical assistance for the problem during their reproductive years. OBJECTIVE To provide current evidence-based guidelines on the techniques and technologies used in endometrial ablation (EA), a minimally invasive technique for the management of AUB of benign origin. METHODS Members of the guideline committee were selected on the basis of individual expertise to represent a range of practical and academic experience in terms of both location in Canada and type of practice, as well as subspecialty expertise and general background in gynaecology. The committee reviewed all available evidence in the English medical literature, including published guidelines, and evaluated surgical and patient outcomes for the various EA techniques. Recommendations were established by consensus. EVIDENCE Published literature was retrieved through searches of MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library in 2013 and 2014 using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (endometrial ablation, hysteroscopy, menorrhagia, heavy menstrual bleeding, AUB, hysterectomy). RESULTS were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies written in English from January 2000 to November 2014. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to December 2014. Grey (unpublished) literature was identifies through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). RESULTS This document reviews the evidence regarding the available techniques and technologies for EA, preoperative and postoperative care, operative set-up, anaesthesia, and practical considerations for practice. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS Implementation of the guideline recommendations will improve the provision of EA as an effective treatment of AUB. Following these recommendations would allow the surgical procedure to be performed safely and maximize success for patients. CONCLUSIONS EA is a safe and effective minimally invasive option for the treatment of AUB of benign etiology. Summary Statements 1. Endometrial ablation is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical procedure that has become a well-established alternative to medical treatment or hysterectomy to treat abnormal uterine bleeding in select cases. (I) 2. Endometrial preparation can be used to facilitate resectoscopic endometrial ablation (EA) and can be considered for some non-resectoscopic techniques. For resectoscopic EA, preoperative endometrial thinning results in higher short-term amenorrhea rates, decreased irrigant fluid absorption, and shorter operative time than no treatment. (I) 3. Non-resectoscopic techniques are technically easier to perform than resectoscopic techniques, have shorter operative times, and allow the use of local rather than general anaesthesia. However, both techniques have comparable patient satisfaction and reduction of heavy menstrual bleeding. (I) 4. Both resectoscopic and non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (EA) have low complication rates. Uterine perforation, fluid overload, hematometra, and cervical lacerations are more common with resectoscopic EA; perioperative nausea/vomiting, uterine cramping, and pain are more common with non-resectoscopic EA. (I) 5. All non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation devices available in Canada have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing menstrual flow and result in high patient satisfaction. The choice of which device to use depends primarily on surgical judgement and the availability of resources. (I) 6. The use of local anaesthetic and blocks, oral analgesia, and conscious sedation allows for the provision of non-resectoscopic EA in lower resource-intense environments including regulated non-hospital settings. (II-2) 7. Low-risk patients with satisfactory pain tolerance are good candidates to undergo endometrial ablation in settings outside the operating room or in free-standing surgical centres. (II-2) 8. Both resectoscopic and non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation are relatively safe procedures with low complication rates. The complications perforation with potential injury to contiguous structures, hemorrhage, and infection. (II-2) 9. Combined hysteroscopic sterilization and endometrial ablation can be safe and efficacious while favouring a minimally invasive approach. (II-2) Recommendations 1. Preoperative assessment should be comprehensive to rule out any contraindication to endometrial ablation. (II-2A) 2. Patients should be counselled about the need for permanent contraception following endometrial ablation. (II-2B) 3. Recommended evaluations for abnormal uterine bleeding, including but not limited to endometrial sampling and an assessment of the uterine cavity, are necessary components of the preoperative assessment. (II-2B) 4. Clinicians should be vigilant for complications unique to resectoscopic endometrial ablation such as those related to fluid distention media and electrosurgical injuries. (III-A) 5. For resectoscopic endometrial ablation, a strict protocol should be followed for fluid monitoring and management to minimize the risk of complications of distension medium overload. (III-A) 6. If uterine perforation is suspected to have occurred during cervical dilatation or with the resectoscope (without electrosurgery), the procedure should be abandoned and the patient should be closely monitored for signs of intraperitoneal hemorrhage or visceral injury. If the perforation occurs with electrosurgery or if the mechanism of perforation is uncertain, abdominal exploration is warranted to obtain hemostasis and rule out visceral injury. (III-B) 7. With resectoscopic endometrial ablation, if uterine perforation has been ruled out acute hemorrhage may be managed by using intrauterine Foley balloon tamponade, injecting intracervical vasopressors, or administering rectal misoprostol. (III-B) 8. If repeat endometrial ablation (EA) is considered following non-resectoscopic or resectoscopic EA, it should be performed by a hysteroscopic surgeon with direct visualization of the cavity. Patients should be counselled about the increased risk of complications with repeat EA. (II-2A) 9. If significant intracavitary pathology is present, resectoscopic endometrial ablation combined with hysteroscopic myomectomy or polypectomy should be considered in a non-fertility sparing setting. (II-3A).

Technical Update on Tissue Morcellation During Gynaecologic Surgery: Its Uses, Complications, and Risks of Unsuspected Malignancy

OBJECTIVE To review the use of tissue morcellation in minimally invasive gynaecological surgery. OUTCOMES Morcellation may be used in gynaecological surgery to allow removal of large uterine specimens, providing women with a minimally invasive surgical option. Adverse oncologic outcomes of tissue morcellation should be mitigated through improved patient selection, preoperative investigations, and novel techniques that minimize tissue dispersion. EVIDENCE Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed and Medline in the spring of 2014 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (leiomyomsarcoma, uterine neoplasm, uterine myomectomy, hysterectomy) and key words (leiomyoma, endometrial cancer, uterine sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, morcellation, and MRI). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. There were no date limits but results were limited to English or French language materials. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2014. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. (Table 1) BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Gynaecologists may offer women minimally invasive surgery and this may involve tissue morcellation and the use of a power morcellator for specimen retrieval. Women should be counselled that in the case of unexpected uterine sarcoma or endometrial cancer, the use of a morcellator is associated with increased risk of tumour dissemination. Appropriate training and safe practices should be in place before offering tissue morcellation. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: 1. Uterine sarcomas may be difficult to diagnose preoperatively. The risk of an unexpected uterine sarcoma following surgery for presumed benign uterine leiomyoma is approximately 1 in 350, and the rate of leiomyosarcoma is 1 in 500. (II-2) This risk increases with age. (II-2) 2. An unexpected uterine sarcoma treated by primary surgery involving tumour disruption, including morcellation of the tumour, has the potential for intra-abdominal tumour-spread and a worse prognosis. (II-2) 3. Uterus-sparing surgery remains a safe option for patients with symptomatic leiomyomas who desire future fertility. (II-1) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Techniques for morcellation of a uterine specimen vary, and physicians should consider employing techniques that minimize specimen disruption and intra-abdominal spread. (III-C) 2. Each patient presenting with uterine leiomyoma should be assessed for the possible presence of malignancy, based on her risk factors and preoperative imaging, although the value of these is limited. (III-C) 3. Preoperative endometrial biopsy and cervical assessment to avoid morcellation of potentially detectable malignant and premalignant conditions is recommended. (II-2A) 4. Hereditary cancer syndromes that increase the risk of uterine malignancy should be considered a contraindication to uncontained uterine morcellation. (III-C) 5. Uterine morcellation is contraindicated in women with established or suspected cancer. (II-2A) If there is a high index of suspicion of a uterine sarcoma prior to surgery, patients should be advised to proceed with a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, and possible oophorectomy. (II-2C) A gynaecologic oncology consultation should be obtained. 6. Tissue morcellation techniques require appropriate training and experience. Safe practice initiatives surrounding morcellation technique and the use of equipment should be implemented at the local level. (II-3B) 7. Morcellation is an acceptable option for retrieval of benign uterine specimens and may facilitate a minimally invasive surgical approach, which is associated with decreased perioperative risks. Each patient should be counselled about the possible risks associated with the use of morcellation, including the risks associated with underlying malignancy. (III-C).