Treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding:Results of a prospective cohort study alongside a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the reintervention rate of women who opted for treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) to women who opted for endometrial ablation. Furthermore, the difference in reintervention rate between women in this observational cohort and women who were randomised was compared, with the hypothesis that women who actively decide on treatment have lower reintervention rates compared to women in a RCT. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cohort study alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between April 2012 and January 2016, with a follow-up time of 24 months, in 26 hospitals and nearby general practices in the Netherlands. Women suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without intracavitary pathology and without a future fertility desire, were eligible for this trial. Women who declined randomisation were asked to participate in the observational cohort. The outcome measure was reintervention rate at 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: 276 women were followed in the observational cohort of which 87 women preferred an initial treatment with LNG-IUS and 189 women preferred an initial treatment with endometrial ablation. At 24 months of follow-up women in the LNG-IUS-group were more likely to receive a reintervention compared to the women in the ablation group, 28/81 (35 %) versus 25/178 (14 %) (aRR 2.42, CI 1.47-3.98, p-value 0.001). No differences in reintervention rates were found between women in the observational cohort and women in the RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Women who receive an LNG-IUS are more likely to undergo an additional intervention compared to women who receive endometrial ablation. Reintervention rates of women in the cohort and RCT population were comparable. The results of this study endorse the findings of the RCT and will contribute to shared decision making in women with heavy menstrual bleeding

Women’s preference for laparoscopic or abdominal hysterectomy

In the present study, women’s preferences on advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH) have been studied. Patients’ preferences were evaluated in individual, structured interviews in women scheduled for hysterectomy and questionnaires in nurses. Forty-three patients and 39 nurses were included. After general information, 84% of patients and 74% of nurses preferred LH over AH. This preference did not change after supplying more detailed information or after hysterectomy. The avoidance of complications was indicated as the most important factor in the decision. More than half of the women evaluated a difference of 1% as the maximum acceptable risk of major complications. When confronted with scenarios based on current evidence, both patients and nurses prefer LH over AH. This study supports further implementation of LH in clinical practice. The actual major complication rate in hysterectomy, however, is perceived as high

Pregnancy in a Patient with an Intra-Abdominal Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System

Background: The levonorgestrel-releasing-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is a frequently used method of contraception worldwide. A rare, but bothersome complication of the LNG-IUS is a perforation of the uterus after insertion. Knowledge about the preferred management option in case of an intra-abdominally situated LNG-IUS during pregnancy is lacking. Case: This case report concerns a 33-year-old patient who became pregnant despite having an intra-abdominally situated LNG-IUS. The patient was counseled about the management options. The advantages and disadvantages of expectant management versus laparoscopic removal of the LNG-IUS were discussed, and the patient preferred removal of the IUS. The procedure was performed laparoscopically at 15 weeks of pregnancy. Results: The IUS was removed without complications, and the patient's pregnancy proceeded uneventfully. Conclusions: Considering the degree of evidence, it is important to make a tailor-made decision in case of a pregnancy with a perforated LNG-IUS

The pre-operative assessment of the adnexal mass: the accuracy of clinical estimates versus clinical prediction rules

Objective To evaluate the reproducibility of the clinical judgement of gynaecologists, gynaecologists in training and gynaecologic oncologists and to compare the predictive performance of the offhand assessment with the predictive performance of existing mathematical models for the pre-operative assessment of the adnexal mass. Design Questionnaire with paper cases of women operated on for an adnexal mass. Setting Gynaecological unit in a teaching hospital in the South of The Netherlands. Population Women who underwent surgery for adnexal mass between January 1991 and December 1998. Methods We offered 45 gynaecologists five different sets of 34 cases, with data on female age and menopausal status, a written description of the sonography, Doppler flow measurement and serum CA125 measurement. Nine observers for every set were asked to estimate the probability of malignancy. Main outcome measures The reproducibility of the risk estimates as made by the participants was expressed with an intraclass correlation coefficients. The accuracy of the judgement of the clinicians and the result of mathematical models in the prediction of malignancy were expressed with sensitivity, specificity and receiver-operating characteristic curves. Results Neither clinically relevant nor statistically significant differences could be found between the accuracy of the risk assessments made by the clinicians and the accuracy of the risk assessments made by prediction models. Conclusion This study demonstrates that at this moment there is no need to introduce complicated predictive scoring systems such as neural networks or logistic regression models for the pre-operative assessment of the adnexal masse

Patients' preferences in mode of surgery of an adnexal mass

Objective. We assessed the preferences of women with an adnexal mass for the mode of surgery. Methods. A structured interview was designed in which women, scheduled for surgery for an adnexal mass, were confronted with fictive scenarios of the different approaches. Women were asked at what probability of a false negative test result of frozen section diagnosis they would prefer frozen section diagnosis over primary radical surgery. Furthermore, the women were asked at what probability of ovarian malignancy they would prefer laparoscopy over laparotomy. Results. We interviewed 43 women. When the probability of frozen section diagnosis being false negative was set at 90%, 97% of the women preferred primary radical surgery. The mean threshold at which women switched their preference from primary radical surgery to frozen section diagnosis was at a risk of 49% on a false negative test result of frozen section diagnosis. In the choice between laparoscopy over laparotomy, the mean threshold at which the women switched their preference from laparoscopy to laparotomy was at a risk of 55% on ovarian malignancy. Conclusion. Women scheduled for surgery of an adnexal mass at low risk of ovarian malignancy, prefer frozen section diagnosis over primary radical surgery and prefer laparoscopy over laparotom

Is 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography necessary 6 weeks after insertion of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device?

BACKGROUND: In Dutch practice, gynecologists are used to assessing the position of the LNG-IUD by performing a two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) directly after insertion and do not routinely invite patients for another consultation 4-12 weeks after insertion. There is no consensus whether a TVUS six weeks after insertion is routinely needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the incidence of malposition using 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography during routine investigation 6 weeks after insertion. In addition, we investigated the relationship between malposition of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device and unfavorable bleeding patterns and pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a large prospective cohort study. Patients seeking a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device were eligible for inclusion. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed to check position of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device immediately after insertion and 6 weeks later. Patients filled in questionnaires about bleeding pattern and pelvic pain 6 weeks after insertion. RESULTS: From March 2015 to December 2016, we enrolled 500 patients. Data from the transvaginal ultrasonography assessment 6 weeks after insertion were available for 448 patients, and complete data (transvaginal ultrasonography and questionnaire data) were available for 363 patients (72.6%). Malposition rate was 6.3% (28/448 patients). Malposition was seen in 15 of 198 patients (7.6%) with unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain and in 3 of 165 patients (1.8%) with favorable bleeding patterns and no pelvic pain (P=.03).Malposition was seen in 14 of 186 patients (7.5%) with an unfavorable bleeding pattern and in 4 of 177 patients (2.3%) with favorable bleeding patterns (P=.008). Malposition was seen in 5 of 50 patients (10%) with pelvic pain and in 13 of 313 patients (4.2%) without pelvic pain (P=.08). CONCLUSION: The malposition rate of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device observed using transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks after insertion was 6.3%. If patients have no complaints of unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain, the risk for malposition is low (1.8%) and a routine transvaginal ultrasonography is not necessary. However, if patients experience unfavorable bleeding, a transvaginal ultrasonography should be considered to exclude malposition, because the effect of malposition on contraceptive effectiveness is unsure. Future research should focus on cost-benefit analysis

Is 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography necessary 6 weeks after insertion of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device?

BACKGROUND: In Dutch practice, gynecologists are used to assessing the position of the LNG-IUD by performing a two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) directly after insertion and do not routinely invite patients for another consultation 4-12 weeks after insertion. There is no consensus whether a TVUS six weeks after insertion is routinely needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the incidence of malposition using 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography during routine investigation 6 weeks after insertion. In addition, we investigated the relationship between malposition of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device and unfavorable bleeding patterns and pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a large prospective cohort study. Patients seeking a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device were eligible for inclusion. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed to check position of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device immediately after insertion and 6 weeks later. Patients filled in questionnaires about bleeding pattern and pelvic pain 6 weeks after insertion. RESULTS: From March 2015 to December 2016, we enrolled 500 patients. Data from the transvaginal ultrasonography assessment 6 weeks after insertion were available for 448 patients, and complete data (transvaginal ultrasonography and questionnaire data) were available for 363 patients (72.6%). Malposition rate was 6.3% (28/448 patients). Malposition was seen in 15 of 198 patients (7.6%) with unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain and in 3 of 165 patients (1.8%) with favorable bleeding patterns and no pelvic pain (P=.03). Malposition was seen in 14 of 186 patients (7.5%) with an unfavorable bleeding pattern and in 4 of 177 patients (2.3%) with favorable bleeding patterns (P=.008). Malposition was seen in 5 of 50 patients (10%) with pelvic pain and in 13 of 313 patients (4.2%) without pelvic pain (P=.08). CONCLUSION: The malposition rate of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device observed using transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks after insertion was 6.3%. If patients have no complaints of unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain, the risk for malposition is low (1.8%) and a routine transvaginal ultrasonography is not necessary. However, if patients experience unfavorable bleeding, a transvaginal ultrasonography should be considered to exclude malposition, because the effect of malposition on contraceptive effectiveness is unsure. Future research should focus on cost-benefit analysis