Laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation: a survey of gynaecological practice in the UK

In: Gynaecological Endoscopy · 2000 · vol. 9(3) , pp. 157–159 · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2508.2000.00323.x · W2039065814
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 12 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View at publisher

Abstract

Objective To determine the current use of and the indications for laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) in the UK, and to establish practitioners' views regarding the desirability of a controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy of LUNA. Setting Gynaecologists associated with the British Society of Gynecological Endoscopy. Design A self‐administered structured questionnaire was posted to 457 UK gynaecologists. Their surgical practice and willingness to participate in a randomized trial were surveyed. The postal questionnaire was returned by 249 (55% response rate). Results The survey indicated that 113 (45%) of the responders performed LUNA. Of these, 86 (76%) carried out LUNA for chronic pelvic pain, 72 (64%) for endometriosis, and 16 (14%) for dyspaurenia/dysmenorrhoea. Diathermy was used as the surgical tool by 66 (59%) gynaecologists and laser was used by 57 (51%). Of the 113 currently using LUNA, 91 (81%) were willing to enter patients into a proposed clinical trial of LUNA. Conclusion Current clinical practice regarding LUNA for pelvic pain is hung in equipoise. This means that the technique has been introduced without reliable evidence of efficacy but opinion regarding its use is not yet solidified. Hence, a rigorous randomized trial of LUNA's efficacy is urgently needed and is practicable.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosischronic_pelvic_paindysmenorrhea

Citation neighborhood

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. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (16)

Cited by (12)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK