Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGhoubara, Ahmed
dc.contributor.authorGunasekera, Seuvandhi
dc.contributor.authorRao, Lavanya
dc.contributor.authorEwies, Ayman
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-23T13:24:18Z
dc.date.available2024-10-23T13:24:18Z
dc.date.issued2021-10-23
dc.identifier.citationGhoubara A, Gunasekera S, Rao L, Ewies A. Re-intervention and patient satisfaction rates following office radiofrequency endometrial ablation: a comparative retrospective study of 408 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Jul;42(5):1358-1364. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1965560.en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1364-6893
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01443615.2021.1965560
dc.identifier.pmid34689685
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/6209
dc.description.abstractThis retrospective study assessed the efficacy and long-term satisfaction of radiofrequency endometrial ablation outside the context of clinical trials in 408 women, and compared the outcome between office-setting (211, 52%) and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics (197, 48%). The Kaplan Meir time-to-event analysis showed that the cumulative number of women undergoing surgical re-intervention was 32 with a probability of 9.4% (95% CI: 6.3 - 12.5%) at 2-years, and 45 with a probability of 14.5% (95% CI: 10.3 - 18.2%) at 5-years. There was no statistically significant difference in the re-intervention rate between office and day-case groups (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.68 - 3.1, p = .3). The satisfaction rate, measured by Visual Analogue Scale, was not statistically different (p = .5) between office (109; 80.7%) and day-case (96; 82.8%) groups. This study showed lower surgical re-intervention rate than previously reported in observational studies, and high rates of long-term women satisfaction. The outcomes were similar in office and day-case settings.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Previous studies have shown the safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency endometrial ablation for treating heavy periods. However, studies investigating it, outside clinical trials, either included a small sample size, a short-term follow-up, poor reporting so that it is impossible to judge whether some women underwent re-intervention in another centre, failed to discriminate in analysis between second-generation techniques, or assessed only short-term satisfaction.What do the results of this study add? This is the largest series reported from a single centre and the first study reporting long-term satisfaction in women, outside clinical trials. Surgical re-intervention was used as the primary outcome measure which is an objective measure rather than the change in the monthly flow which is rather subjective. More importantly, the study records the similarity, in the outcome and women's satisfaction rate, between office and day-case procedures under general anaesthetics.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Endometrial ablation service is widely implemented in office-setting in the UK. We hope the result of this study encourages implementation on a larger scale in office across centres in the world with its multiple advantages both to women and service alike.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis Groupen_US
dc.subjectGynaecologyen_US
dc.titleRe-intervention and patient satisfaction rates following office radiofrequency endometrial ablation: a comparative retrospective study of 408 cases.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.typeOtheren_US
dc.source.journaltitleen_US
dc.source.volume
dc.source.issue
dc.source.beginpage
dc.source.endpage
dc.source.country
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorGunasekera, Seuvandhi
dc.contributor.trustauthorRao, Lavanya
dc.contributor.trustauthorEwies, Ayman
dc.contributor.departmentSandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trusten_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationSandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust; University of Birmingham; Aswan University Hospitalen_US
dc.identifier.journalJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record