The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2021
Tubal interruption and subsequent surgery for pain after endometrial ablation: A retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Paul Tarini D, Readman Emma, Mooney Samantha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endometrial ablation (EA) is an alternative to hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), with reduced recovery time and fewer operative risks. However, post-ablation pain may be associated with subsequent surgery, including hysterectomy. It is uncertain what factors affect surgery rates for post-ablation pain, particularly with respect to timing and technique of tubal interruption.
AIM: To evaluate the relationship between tubal interruption and post-ablation pain and subsequent surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 324 patients at a Melbourne tertiary hospital from 2009 to 2020. The primary outcome was subsequent pelvic surgery for pain following EA.
RESULTS: Pain following EA was reported by 29.7% of patients, with 10.5% of patients undergoing subsequent surgery for pain. Patients with tubal interruption were more likely to undergo subsequent surgery for pain than those with no tubal interruption (odds ratio (OR): 3.49, 95% CI: 1.59-7.66; P = 0.002). Tubal ligation was strongly associated with subsequent surgery for pain (OR: 3.12, 95% CI: 1.48-6.57; P = 0.003). In contrast, those with salpingectomy did not have an increased risk of subsequent surgery for pain, compared to those with no tubal interruption (OR: 1.5; 95% CI 0.32-7.13). Pre-ablation pain (adjusted OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.37-6.48; P = 0.006) and previous caesarean section (OR: 2.66; 95% CI: 1.13-6.25; P = 0.025) were also associated with subsequent surgery for pain.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that tubal interruption, pre-ablation pain and previous caesarean section are associated with subsequent surgery for pain. These results can better inform preoperative counselling regarding the risk of subsequent surgery after EA.
AIM: To evaluate the relationship between tubal interruption and post-ablation pain and subsequent surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 324 patients at a Melbourne tertiary hospital from 2009 to 2020. The primary outcome was subsequent pelvic surgery for pain following EA.
RESULTS: Pain following EA was reported by 29.7% of patients, with 10.5% of patients undergoing subsequent surgery for pain. Patients with tubal interruption were more likely to undergo subsequent surgery for pain than those with no tubal interruption (odds ratio (OR): 3.49, 95% CI: 1.59-7.66; P = 0.002). Tubal ligation was strongly associated with subsequent surgery for pain (OR: 3.12, 95% CI: 1.48-6.57; P = 0.003). In contrast, those with salpingectomy did not have an increased risk of subsequent surgery for pain, compared to those with no tubal interruption (OR: 1.5; 95% CI 0.32-7.13). Pre-ablation pain (adjusted OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.37-6.48; P = 0.006) and previous caesarean section (OR: 2.66; 95% CI: 1.13-6.25; P = 0.025) were also associated with subsequent surgery for pain.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that tubal interruption, pre-ablation pain and previous caesarean section are associated with subsequent surgery for pain. These results can better inform preoperative counselling regarding the risk of subsequent surgery after EA.