title: 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 menstrual bleeding is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS).
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand, 1003.
authors.forename: Jane
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Marjoribanks
authors.forename: Anne
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lethaby
authors.forename: Cindy
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Farquhar
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000933:Antifibrinolytic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003278:Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004717:Endometrium / Q000601:surgery; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy; D007436:Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; D008595:Menorrhagia / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011788:Quality of Life; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
chemical_list: D000933:Antifibrinolytic Agents; D003278:Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal
references.citation: Br J Gen Pract. 2004 May;54(502):359-63
references.pmid: 15113519
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980 Jul;87(7):603-9
references.pmid: 7426516
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD001016
references.pmid: 18253983
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
references.pmid: 12958120
references.citation: Maturitas. 2007 Jul 20;57(3):279-85
references.pmid: 17329045
references.citation: Drugs. 1999 Jun;57(6):1005-32
references.pmid: 10400410
references.citation: Contraception. 2002 Jan;65(1):63-74
references.pmid: 11861056
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Apr;106(4):360-6
references.pmid: 10426244
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Jan 27;357(9252):273-7
references.pmid: 11214131
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD001017
references.pmid: 17636649
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 May;103(5 Pt 1):824-33
references.pmid: 15121552
references.citation: BJOG. 2000 Mar;107(3):320-2
references.pmid: 10740326
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD003677
references.pmid: 19588344
references.citation: Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):409-15
references.pmid: 23228505
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Dec;104(12):1351-9
references.pmid: 9422012
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):229-34
references.pmid: 11814502
references.citation: Contraception. 2011 Jan;83(1):48-54
references.pmid: 21134503
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 May;102(5):401-6
references.pmid: 7612535
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 May 1;108(1):72-4
references.pmid: 12694974
references.citation: Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Aug;28(6):825-34
references.pmid: 25028259
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD003855
references.pmid: 16625593
references.citation: BJOG. 2000 Oct;107(10):1325-6
references.pmid: 11028596
references.citation: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59(1):29-35
references.pmid: 15377823
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000249
references.pmid: 10796518
references.citation: Int J Behav Med. 2007;14(2):70-5
references.pmid: 17926434
references.citation: BJOG. 2006 Jul;113(7):797-803
references.pmid: 16827763
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):257-63
references.pmid: 9241305
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(12):1389-96
references.pmid: 19878089
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999 Jan;82(1):73-6
references.pmid: 10192489
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;194(2):332-8
references.pmid: 16458625
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Aug;47(4):335-40
references.pmid: 17627692
references.citation: Semin Reprod Med. 2001 Dec;19(4):355-63
references.pmid: 11727177
references.citation: Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1964;16:244-8
references.pmid: 14161862
references.citation: Zentralbl Gynakol. 2002 Apr;124(4):213-9
references.pmid: 12080483
references.citation: Int Surg. 2012 Oct-Dec;97(4):310-4
references.pmid: 23294071
references.citation: BJOG. 2001 Dec;108(12):1222-8
references.pmid: 11843383
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2001 Aug;76(2):304-9
references.pmid: 11476777
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 May;104(5):614-6
references.pmid: 9166207
references.citation: Contraception. 2010 Mar;81(3):226-31
references.pmid: 20159179
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 30;(4):CD002126
references.pmid: 25924648
references.citation: BJOG. 2005 Aug;112(8):1109-16
references.pmid: 16045526
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 29;(11):CD000329
references.pmid: 24288154
references.citation: BJOG. 2005 Aug;112(8):1121-5
references.pmid: 16045528
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Jun;105(6):592-8
references.pmid: 9647148
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 30;(8):CD001501
references.pmid: 23990373
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD000400
references.pmid: 23440779
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000 May;90(1):27-9
references.pmid: 10767506
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Dec;104(12):1360-6
references.pmid: 9422013
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2011 Apr;15(19):iii-xvi, 1-252
references.pmid: 21535970
references.citation: Womens Health Issues. 2009 Jan-Feb;19(1):70-8
references.pmid: 19111789
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Feb;31(1):66-70
references.pmid: 1872778
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 15;(11):CD010241
references.pmid: 24234875
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Mar;106(3):258-65
references.pmid: 10426646
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD000154
references.pmid: 19821266
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;209(6):535.e1-535.e14
references.pmid: 23999423
references.citation: BJOG. 2010 Apr;117(5):602-9
references.pmid: 20156209
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 2004 Feb;25(1):104-18
references.pmid: 14980755
references.citation: Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:207-11
references.pmid: 21845065
references.citation: BMJ. 1998 Apr 11;316(7138):1122-6
references.pmid: 9552948
references.citation: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;62(2):84-8
references.pmid: 16612101
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Jan;86(1):46-50
references.pmid: 760766
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 Mar 24;291(12):1456-63
references.pmid: 15039412
references.citation: BJOG. 2007 May;114(5):563-8
references.pmid: 17439564
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 Mar 24;291(12):1447-55
references.pmid: 15039411
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2004 Feb;19(2):378-82
references.pmid: 14747185
references.citation: J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Mar-Apr;20(2):222-6
references.pmid: 23403087
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD003855
references.pmid: 12804492
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1966;45(3):320-51
references.pmid: 5922481
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Mar;91(3):318-25
references.pmid: 22168810
references.citation: BMC Womens Health. 2013 Aug 08;13:32
references.pmid: 23927387
references.citation: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;20(4):381-5
references.pmid: 12383322
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Dec;104(6):1314-21
references.pmid: 15572496
references.citation: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012 Aug;21(8):851-7
references.pmid: 22519705
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Aug;97(8):734-9
references.pmid: 2400752
references.citation: Value Health. 2007 May-Jun;10(3):183-94
references.pmid: 17532811
references.citation: BJOG. 2006 Mar;113(3):257-63
references.pmid: 16487195
references.citation: BJOG. 2005 Jul;112(7):956-62
references.pmid: 15957999