A randomised trial comparing local versus general anaesthesia for microwave endometrial ablation

Sarah Wallage, S Wallage, Kevin Cooper, K G Cooper, W J Graham, Wendy Graham, David E. Parkin, D E Parkin
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2003 · vol. 110(9) , pp. 799–807 · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.02178.x · PMID:14511961 · W1994682238
RCT OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 10 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

Microwave endometrial ablation under local anesthesia was acceptable to most women, though general anesthesia resulted in higher acceptability and preference for re-treatment, with no significant differences in recovery or post-operative symptoms.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation using a local anaesthesia/sedation regime or general anaesthesia. To compare recovery following treatment with each type of anaesthetic. DESIGN: Prospective randomised controlled trial with follow up of women who declined randomisation. SETTING: The gynaecology department of a large teaching hospital in the UK. POPULATION: All women referred for microwave endometrial ablation at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary between July 1999 and September 2000 without a medical reason to favour one or other type of anaesthetic. METHODS: 191 women were equally randomised to undergo microwave endometrial ablation under general or local anaesthesia. Details were also collected for women not randomised because of an anaesthetic preference. All procedures were undertaken in an operating theatre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected by questionnaire including the woman's view of treatment acceptability, operative details and post-operative recovery. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of eligible women would consider treatment under local anaesthesia. Ninety-one percent of microwave endometrial ablation procedures that started under local anaesthesia were completed without conversion to general anaesthesia. Anaesthetic type and allocation by randomisation or preference made no significant difference to the proportion of women describing treatment as totally or generally acceptable at two weeks. Neither parity nor cavity size predicted acceptability. Women allocated general anaesthesia were more likely to describe the procedure as totally acceptable and to choose the same anaesthetic again. There was no significant difference between anaesthetic groups regarding post-operative pain, nausea or recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: Microwave endometrial ablation under local anaesthesia was acceptable to the majority of women referred for treatment. There was no recovery advantage from local anaesthesia and almost 1 in 10 women who starting treatment under local anaesthesia needed a general anaesthetic because of discomfort. The incidence of post-operative pain and nausea means that treatment with this local anaesthetic/sedation regime remains a day case rather than an outpatient procedure.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

MeSH descriptors

Anesthesia, General Anesthesia, Local Catheter Ablation Endometrium Microwaves Uterine Diseases Adult Anesthesia, General Anesthesia, Local Catheter Ablation Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Microwaves Middle Aged Patient Satisfaction Prospective Studies Uterine Diseases

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (18)

Cited by (7)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-05-10T10:52:41.863198+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:02:06.159351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-17T06:24:38.187582+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK