An economic evaluation of transcervical endometrial resection versus abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of menorrhagia

Mark Sculpher, Stirling Bryan, Nuala Dwyer, John Hutton, Gordon M. Stirrat
In: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 1993 · vol. 100(3) , pp. 244–252 · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15238.x · PMID:8476830 · W2143127536
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 36 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-13 ⓘ

Endometrial resection is more cost-effective than abdominal hysterectomy for menorrhagia up to four months post-surgery, though long-term costs and benefits require further evaluation.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative health service cost of endometrial resection versus abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of menorrhagia and the value women attach to their health state before and after surgery. DESIGN: A prospective economic evaluation running alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The gynaecology department of a teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: 200 women requiring surgical treatment of menorrhagia between January 1990 and May 1991; after withdrawals, 97 women underwent hysterectomy and 99 underwent endometrial resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The total health service cost of managing women in the two arms of the trial until 4 months after their operation. The change in women's valuation of their health state a fortnight after and a minimum of 4 months after surgery relative to that 1 month prior to their operation. RESULTS: Total health service costs are significantly higher amongst abdominal hysterectomy patients (mean 1059.73 pounds) than amongst endometrial resection patients with a mean difference of 499.68 pounds (95% CI 432 pounds-567 pounds). This significant difference exists under alternative assumptions about the difference in lengths of stay in hospital between the two treatment groups and the hotel cost per in-patient day. On a scale of 0 to 100, relative to a month before surgery, there is a statistically significant difference in favour of endometrial resection between the two groups in the increase in value women attach to their health state at a fortnight after surgery (mean difference 11.2; 95% CI 0.6-21.7), but not at a minimum of 4 months after surgery (mean difference 7; 95% CI -17.4 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of health service resource cost up to 4 months after surgery, endometrial resection has a cost advantage over abdominal hysterectomy. However, given the fact that a subgroup of women requires retreatment due to resection failure and that this study considers a relatively short period of follow up, the long term costs and benefits of endometrial resection need to be evaluated before widespread diffusion is justified.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

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 (31)

Cited by (37)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-05-11T06:41:50.100108+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK