Incidence and predictors of failed second-generation endometrial ablation

• Published in: Gynecological surgery Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 26 - 6
• Main Authors: Klebanoff, Jordan, Makai, Gretchen E., Patel, Nima R., Hoffman, Matthew K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Ablation; Age; Fibroids; Gynecology; Hysterectomy; Intervention; Interventional Radiology; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Minimally Invasive Surgery; Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery; Original; Original Article; Reproductive Medicine; Surgical Oncology; Endometrial ablation; Treatment failure; Hysterectomy; Risk factors
• ISSN: 1613-2076; 1613-2084
• DOI: 10.1186/s10397-017-1030-4

Background
The need for any treatment following an endometrial ablation is frequently cited as “failed therapy,” with the two most common secondary interventions being repeat ablation and hysterectomy. Since second-generation devices have become standard of care, no large cohort study has assessed treatment outcomes with regard to only these newer devices. We sought to determine the incidence and predictors of failed second-generation endometrial ablation, defined as the need for surgical re-intervention.
We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single academic-affiliated community hospital. Subjects included women undergoing second-generation endometrial ablation for benign indications between October 2003 and March 2016. Second-generation devices utilized during the study period included the radiofrequency ablation device (RFA), hydrothermal ablation device (HTA), and the uterine balloon ablation system (UBA).
Results
Five thousand nine hundred thirty-six women underwent endometrial ablation at a single institution (3757 RFA (63.3%), 1848 HTA (31.1%), and 331 UBA (5.6%)). The primary outcome assessed was surgical re-intervention, defined as hysterectomy or repeat endometrial ablation. Of the total 927 (15.6%) women who required re-intervention, 822 (13.9%) underwent hysterectomy and 105 (1.8%) underwent repeat endometrial ablation. Women who underwent re-intervention were younger (41.6 versus 42.9 years,
p
 < .001), were more often African-American (21.8% versus 16.2%,
p
 < .001), and were more likely to have had a primary radiofrequency ablation procedure (hazard ratio 1.37; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.86). Older age was associated with decreased risk for treatment failure with women older than 45 years of age having the lowest risk for failure (
p
 < .001). Age between 35 and 40 years conferred the highest risk of treatment failure (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.32–1.92). Indications for re-intervention following ablation included menorrhagia (81.8%), abnormal uterine bleeding (27.8%), polyps/fibroids (18.7%), and pain (9.5%).
Conclusion
Surgical re-intervention was required in 15.6% of women who underwent second-generation endometrial ablation. Age, ethnicity, and radiofrequency ablation were significant risk factors for failed endometrial ablation, and menorrhagia was the leading indication for re-intervention.