Abstract:Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Methods: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893. Findings: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54). Interpretation: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery. Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Laparoscopic hysterectomy in chronic renal failure patients with abnormal uterine bleeding

Can Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Ultra-Radical Hysterectomy Play a Role in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer? A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy after laparoscopic conservative surgery with moderate to severe endometriosis

Laparoscopic Vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China

Early Cervical Cancer Recurred with Uterine Fundus Metastasis after Laparoscopic Fertility-Sparing Surgery: A Case Report

A Comparison of Laparoscopies and Laparotomies for Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Single Team With 18 Years of Experience

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus endometrial ablation for women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy for IB1-IIA2 Cervical Cancer

Laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy for III-IV endometriosis

Successful Management of Unruptured Interstitial Pregnancy in 17 Consecutive Cases by Using Laparoscopic Surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in FIGO 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma: Long-term survival outcomes after propensity score matching

69 cases of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy

Clinical analysis of 514 cases of laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy

Evolution of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer along the last two decades: single institution experience

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Laparoscopic-Assisted Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Treating Cervical Cancer: a Meta-Analysis

Prospective cohort study and meta-analysis of cyclic bleeding after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy

Perioperative recovery in different urinary reconstruction approaches of radical cystectomy: Are the advantages of laparoscopy consistent?

[Evaluation of Laparoscopic Surgery in the Early Stage-Malignant Tumor of Ovary with Lower Risk].

Fertility rates, course of pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after laparoscopic ureterolysis for deep endometriosis: A long-term follow-up study

Evaluation of Early Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy