Endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

Purpose of review This review evaluates the currently available evidence regarding resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA) and the various nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA) techniques used for heavy menstrual bleeding. Recent findings Laser endometrial ablation is now used infrequently, largely because of procedure time, but also because of the cost and training associated with the technique. REA can be performed in a wider spectrum of endometrial cavity configurations than NREA and, at least in expert hands, remains the gold standard. Each of the five available types of NREA device possesses advantages and disadvantages over the others with respect to variables such as treatment time, required cervical dilation, and size and configuration of the endometrial cavity. All provide acceptable results that are comparable to that of REA in expert hands. Serious complications seem to be less common with NREA, but uterine perforation and bowel or other visceral injury can still occur. When endometrial-ablation, patients were followed for up to 5 years, repeat surgery rates ranged from 20 to 40%, thereby eroding both the direct and indirect treatment-related resource utilization. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices demonstrate similar clinical and patient-satisfaction outcomes to endometrial ablation but can be inserted in the office and allow maintenance of fertility. Summary Both REA and NREA provide at least short- to intermediate-term options to hysterectomy for patients with heavy menstrual bleeding and normal or near-normal endometrial cavities. Consequently, the ideal candidates Are likely those who are within 5 years of menopause.