![]() ![]() ![]() After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58 172 women 1 study). Women who had an endometrial ablation were less likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.31 participants = 621 studies = 4 I 2 = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59 791 women 5 studies I 2 = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35 605 women 3 studies I 2 = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34 858 women 5 studies I 2 = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53 202 women 1 study) before hospital discharge. ![]() Most adverse events, both major and minor, were more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. The satisfaction rate was lower amongst those who had endometrial ablation at two years after surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95 4 studies, 567 women, I² = 0% moderate‐quality evidence), and no evidence of clear difference was reported between post‐treatment satisfaction rates in groups at other follow‐up times (1 and 4 years). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 16.17, 95% CI 5.53 to 47.24 927 women 7 studies I 2 = 0%), at two years (RR 34.06, 95% CI 9.86 to 117.65 930 women 6 studies I 2 = 0%), at three years (RR 22.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 370.26 172 women 1 study) and at four years (RR 36.32, 95% CI 5.09 to 259.21 197 women 1 study). Women in the endometrial ablation group also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart compared to their baseline (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79 1 study, 68 women moderate‐quality evidence) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91 1 study, 68 women). A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93 4 studies, 650 women, I² = 31% low‐quality evidence), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99 2 studies, 292 women, I² = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99 2 studies, 237 women, I² = 79%). No included trials used third generation techniques.Ĭlinical measures of improved bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates were observed in women who had undergone hysterectomy compared to endometrial ablation. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women. So just need to get until then.īut I was wondering how many other women have experienced trouble with ablation surgery to remove endo? How many of you actually did end up having endo the second go through? How was surgery the second time.We identified nine RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria for this review. I have an appointment with a specialist in a month and a half. Physical therapy is helping with my Pelvic pressure but I can't even work anymore the other pains are so terrible. Needles to say I kicked him to the curve. Dr swears up and down he got everything And when they go to see a specialist they're insides are just littered with endo. They have ablation, pain free, then X amount of time later pains come back. I've talked to some women who have stories like mine. 2 and a half weeks later all my pain comes back 10 fold and my doctor is absolutely baffled and telling me there's no possibility of any endo being left. When I woke up from surgery all my pain was instantly gone. I've done a lot of research on ablation vs excision since and I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to share their stories with ablation. No one told me about excision until after I found out a few days after surgery. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |