A randomised controlled trial of microwave endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation in the outpatient setting: patient acceptability, treatment outcome and costs

Stuart Jack, Kevin Cooper, J Seymour, Wendy Graham, Ann Fitzmaurice, Juan Gregorio Gonzalez Perez
In: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2005 · vol. 112(8) , pp. 1109–1116 · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00630.x · PMID:16045526 · W2009685384
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 6 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-09 ⓘ

Outpatient microwave endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation was more acceptable to patients and significantly reduced costs while maintaining similar menstrual outcomes and satisfaction.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare outpatient microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) in the postmenstrual phase to standard MEA treatment after drug preparation in a day case theatre environment. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A large United Kingdom teaching hospital. POPULATION: Two hundred and ten women complaining of excessive menstrual loss. METHODS: Two hundred and ten women with excessive menstrual loss were randomised. Ninety-seven women were treated as outpatients in the immediate post-menstrual phase and 100 were treated in an operating theatre after hormonal preparation. All procedures were commenced under local anaesthesia with or without conscious sedation. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were satisfaction with treatment (measured at one year) and acceptability of treatment (measured at two weeks). Secondary outcome measures were menstrual outcome and financial cost. RESULTS: Significantly more women found treatment post-menses acceptable; 86 (89.5%) versus 76 (76.0%) [difference in proportions 13.6%, 95% CI (3.0%, 23.9%)]. Similar numbers in each arm were totally or generally satisfied with the treatment, 86 (92.5%) versus 84 (88.4%) [difference in proportions 4.1%, 95% CI (-4.7%, 12.9%)] while amenorrhoea rates at one year were comparable, 52 (55.9%) versus 60 (61.9%). [difference in proportions -5.9%, 95% CI (-19.8%, 7.6%)]. The mean health service costs were 124 pounds (95% CI 86-194 pounds) lower for the patients in the post-menses group. CONCLUSION: MEA performed under local anaesthesia (with or without conscious sedation) in the post-menstrual phase achieves high levels of satisfaction is very acceptable to patients and results in significantly reduced health service costs. Importantly menstrual outcomes are not affected by omission of drug preparation. There is now good evidence to support the use of MEA, without drug endometrial preparation, in the outpatient setting.

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 (19)

Cited by (6)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-05-11T06:02:20.344922+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK