Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Aug;15(4):327-32.

Endometrial ablation.

Author information

  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Southmead Hospital Hospital, Bristol, UK.



Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' commissioned as part of the preparation for this article.


The so-called first-generation methods (laser, resection, rollerball) have now got long-term follow-up data of up to 20 years. A few of the second-generation devices have published long-term follow-up data of 5 years. All of the second-generation devices assessed in randomized trials with the first-generation methods compare favourably; however, there are few data on cost effectiveness. Similarly, there are few data comparing endometrial ablation with the Mirena intrauterine device.


Conventional endometrial ablation has been extensively validated; however, many of the newer techniques have inadequate patient numbers or lengths of follow-up on which to evaluate their long-term efficacy, safety or cost effectiveness fully. The anticipated decline in hysterectomy rates with the advent of endometrial destruction methods has not occurred, and this may indicate a lower threshold for surgical management.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk