Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mesa, Arizona, USA
Fayoum University Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum, Egypt.
BMJ Open. 2024 May 28;14(5):e065966. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065966.
First-generation and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA) techniques, along with medical treatment and invasive surgery, are considered successful lines of management for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). We set out to determine the efficacy of first and second-generation ablation techniques compared with medical treatment, invasive surgery and different modalities of the EA techniques themselves.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a frequentist network.
We searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus for all published studies up to 1 March 2021 using relevant keywords.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared premenopausal women with AUB receiving the intervention of second-generation EA techniques.
49 high-quality RCTs with 8038 women were included. We extracted and pooled the data and then analysed to estimate the network meta-analysis models within a frequentist framework. We used the random-effects model of the netmeta package in R (V.3.6.1) and the 'Meta-Insight' website.
Our network meta-analysis showed many varying results according to specific outcomes. The uterine balloon ablation had significantly higher amenorrhoea rates than other techniques in both short (hydrothermal ablation (risk ratio (RR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.37; 0.72), microwave ablation (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.31; 0.59), first-generation techniques (RR=0.44, 95% CI 0.33; 0.59), endometrial laser intrauterine therapy (RR=0.18, 95% CI 0.10; 0.32) and bipolar radio frequency treatments (RR=0.22, 95% CI 0.15; 0.31)) and long-term follow-up (microwave ablation (RR=0.11, 95% CI 0.01; 0.86), bipolar radio frequency ablation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90), first generation (RR=0.12, 95% CI 0.02; 0.90) and endometrial laser intrauterine thermal therapy (RR=0.04, 95% CI 0.01; 0.36)). When calculating efficacy based only on calculated bleeding scores, the highest scores were achieved by cryoablation systems (p-score=0.98).
Most second-generation EA systems were superior to first-generation systems, and statistical superiority between devices depended on which characteristic was measured (secondary amenorrhoea rate, treatment of AUB, patient satisfaction or treatment of dysmenorrhoea). Although our study was limited by a paucity of data comparing large numbers of devices, we conclude that there is no evidence at this time that any one of the examined second-generation systems is clearly superior to all others.
第一代和第二代子宫内膜消融(EA)技术以及药物治疗和侵入性手术被认为是治疗异常子宫出血(AUB)的成功治疗方法。我们旨在确定第一代和第二代消融技术与药物治疗、侵入性手术以及不同的 EA 技术本身之间的疗效。
使用频率网络进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
我们使用相关关键词在 2021 年 3 月 1 日之前在 Medline(Ovid)、PubMed、ClinicalTrials.gov、Cochrane 中央、Web of Science、EBSCO 和 Scopus 中搜索了所有已发表的研究。
我们纳入了所有比较接受第二代 EA 技术干预的 AUB 绝经前女性的随机对照试验(RCT)。
纳入了 49 项高质量 RCT 和 8038 名女性。我们提取和汇总数据,然后进行分析以估计在频率框架内的网络荟萃分析模型。我们使用 R(V.3.6.1)中的 netmeta 包的随机效应模型和“Meta-Insight”网站。
我们的网络荟萃分析根据特定结局显示出许多不同的结果。子宫球囊消融在短期(热液消融(RR=0.51,95%CI 0.37;0.72)、微波消融(RR=0.43,95%CI 0.31;0.59)、第一代技术(RR=0.44,95%CI 0.33;0.59)、子宫内膜激光宫内治疗(RR=0.18,95%CI 0.10;0.32)和双极射频治疗(RR=0.22,95%CI 0.15;0.31))和长期随访(微波消融(RR=0.11,95%CI 0.01;0.86)、双极射频消融(RR=0.12,95%CI 0.02;0.90)、第一代(RR=0.12,95%CI 0.02;0.90)和子宫内膜激光宫内热疗(RR=0.04,95%CI 0.01;0.36))中具有更高的闭经率。当仅根据计算的出血评分计算疗效时,冷冻消融系统的评分最高(p 评分=0.98)。
大多数第二代 EA 系统优于第一代系统,设备之间的统计学优势取决于测量的特征(继发性闭经率、AUB 治疗、患者满意度或痛经治疗)。尽管我们的研究受到比较大量设备的数据不足的限制,但我们的结论是,目前没有证据表明所检查的第二代系统中的任何一种明显优于所有其他系统。