Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

Abstract

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of heavy bleeding is highly subjective and management of the condition usually depends upon the degree of bleeding and discomfort found acceptable by the individual woman. Medical treatment options include oral medications and a hormone-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (October 2002), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2002), EMBASE (1980 to October 2002), Current Contents (1993 to week 45, 2002), Biological Abstracts (1969 to September 2002), PsycINFO (1985 to October 2002), CINAHL (1982 to October 2002), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

Selection criteria: Controlled randomised trials comparing surgery (conservative surgery and hysterectomy) versus medical therapy (both oral and intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding

Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data, calculating odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes.

Main results: Five trials met the inclusion criteria. They randomised 625 women, 311 to receive surgery and 314 to receive medical treatment. One trial compared endometrial resection with oral medication: surgery proved significantly more effective in controlling bleeding (OR 10.62, 95% CI 5.30 to 21.27) and significantly less likely to cause side effects (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31). In the other four trials the medical arms received LNG-IUS and the surgical arms received conservative surgery or hysterectomy. At one year no statistically significant difference was shown between LNG-IUS and any surgical treatment in satisfaction rates or quality of life, though conservative surgery was significantly less likely to cause adverse effects (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49). Although conservative surgery was significantly more effective than LNG-IUS in controlling bleeding at one year (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 10.38), a small trial showed no significant difference between the treatments at two and three years. Hysterectomy stopped all bleeding but caused serious complications for some women.

Reviewer's conclusions: Surgery reduces menstrual bleeding at one year more than medical treatments, but LNG-IUS appears equally beneficial in improving quality of life and may control bleeding as effectively as conservative surgery over the long term. Oral medication suits a minority of women long term.