Search

STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of curettage versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage.Study design: We conducted a multicenter cohort study alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) between June 2012 until July 2014. 27 Dutch hospitals participated. Women with an incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage who declined to participate in the RCT, received treatment of their preference; curettage (n = 65) or expectant management (n = 132). A successful outcome was defined as an empty uterus on sonography at six weeks or uneventful clinical follow-up. We furthermore assessed complication rate and (re)intervention rateResults: Of the 197 women who declined to participate in the RCT, 65 preferred curettage and 132 expectant management. A successful outcome was observed in 62/65 women (95%) in the surgical group versus 112/132 women (85%) in the expectant group (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.03-1.2), with complication rates of 6.2% versus 2.3%, respectively (RR 2.7, 95% CI 0.6-12).Conclusion: In women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment, expectant management is an effective and safe option. This finding could restrain the use of curettage in women that have used misoprostol in the treatment of first trimester miscarriage. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Objective To compare recurrence of a cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland after surgical treatment using a Word catheter or marsupialisation. Design Multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Setting Eighteen hospitals in the Netherlands and one hospital in England. Population Women with a symptomatic cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland. Methods Women were randomised to treatment with Word catheter or marsupialisation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was recurrence of the cyst or abscess within 1 year of treatment. The secondary outcomes included pain during and after treatment (measured on a 10-point scale), use of analgesics, and time from diagnosis to treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. To assess whether marsupialisation would reduce the recurrence rate by 5% (from 20 to 15%) we needed to include 160 women (alpha error 0.05, beta error 0.2). Results One hundred and sixty-one women were randomly allocated to treatment by Word catheter (n = 82) or marsupialisation (n = 79) between August 2010 and May 2014. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Recurrence occurred in 10 women (12%) allocated to Word catheter versus eight women (10%) allocated to marsupialisation: relative risk (RR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–1.91; P = 0.70. Pain scores after treatment were also comparable. In the first 24 hours after treatment, 33% used analgesics in the Word catheter group versus 74% in the marsupialisation group (P

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition where endometrium-like tissue is located outside the uterine cavity, predominantly inside the pelvis, causing symptoms such as dysmenorrhoea and dyspareunia.1 However, extrapelvic endometriosis can also occur, often leading to delay in diagnosis that results in chronic symptoms and progression of the disease with possible lifelong consequences (for example, infertility).1–3 The current case report illustrates a rare example of extrapelvic endometriosis and catamenial pneumothorax (that is, pneumothorax occurring during the perimenstrual period). The aim of this article is therefore to improve endometriosis awareness among GPs. The key message from this case report is that GPs should be aware of endometriosis when women present with symptoms that fluctuate with their menstrual cycle. A 34-year-old woman was referred by her GP because of coughing, painful breathing, and dyspnoea. A right-sided pneumothorax was diagnosed and successfully drained. After 5 months, a second pneumothorax occurred, for which a thoracoscopic talc pleurodesis was performed to obliterate the pleural space to prevent further recurrences. No abnormalities were seen during thoracoscopy or …

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) can negatively influence physical activity, work productivity, and sexual life and therefore has a major impact on women's quality of life (QoL). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as the treatment of first choice for HMB. Surgical treatments for treating HMB in women without future pregnancy wish include endometrial ablation (EA) and hysterectomy. Because of potentially biased studies and conflicting results on bleeding scores, satisfaction, and reintervention rate, there is no consensus on the efficacy of LNG-IUS versus EA. This multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of the LNG-IUS system with EA in women with HMB. This study was performed between 2012 and 2016 in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women were considered eligible if they had a diagnosed HMB with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) score exceeding 150 points, were older than 34 years, had no pregnancy wish, and had no abnormal cervix cytology in the past 5 years. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the LNG-IUS or EA cohort. The LNG-IUS cohort had implantation of the device containing a total of 52 mg of levonorgestrel, releasing 20 μg/d. The EA intervention was performed with a bipolar radiofrequency device either in the office under local anesthetics or in the operating room under general or spinal anesthesia. The primary study outcome was menstrual blood loss at 24 months after randomization in PBAC, measured by participants through standardized questionnaires. Participants completed questionnaires before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis with a hypothesis that LNG-IUS would be noninferior to EA. Noninferiority of the LNG-IUS protocol would be established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in PBAC score did not exceed the predetermined noninferiority margin of 25 points with P < 0.05. A total of 270 participants were randomized to initial treatment with LNG-IUS (n = 132) or treatment with EA (n = 138) between April 2012 and January 2016. A total of 247 participants (91%) reported PBAC scores at 24 months. The mean PBAC score was 64.8 in the LNG-IUS group compared with 14.2 in the EA group (mean difference, 50.5; 95% CI, 4.3-96.7). Noninferiority of LNG-IUS could not be demonstrated (noninferiority, P = 0.87). At 3 months of follow-up, 60% of women in the LNG-IUS group had reached a PBAC score of less than 75 points compared with 83% of women in the EA group (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87). The LNG-IUS was removed in 49 women (39%), and those in the LNG-IUS cohort were more likely to receive a surgical or drug reintervention within 24 months compared with women in the EA group (35% vs 20%; relative risk, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.17-2.68). There was no statistically significant difference in participant satisfaction and QoL between the cohorts. This study found that both the LNG-IUS and EA protocols for HMB led to a large decrease in menstrual blood loss, with LNG-IUS resulting in an increased risk of needing additional treatment and EA achieving a greater decrease in blood loss, with comparable QoL and satisfaction scores. Noninferiority of LNG-IUS compared with EA could not be demonstrated.

Item does not contain fulltext STUDY QUESTION: Is curettage more effective than expectant management in case of an incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage? SUMMARY ANSWER: Curettage leads to a higher chance of complete evacuation but expectant management is successful in at least 76% of women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 5-50% of the women treated with misoprostol, there is a suspicion of incomplete evacuation of the uterus on sonography. Although these women generally have minor symptoms, such a finding often leads to additional curettage. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: From June 2012 until July 2014, we conducted a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Women who had had primary misoprostol treatment for miscarriage with sonographic evidence of incomplete evacuation of the uterus were randomly allocated to either curettage or expectant management (1:1), using a web-based application. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included 59 women in 27 hospitals; 30 were allocated to curettage and 29 were allocated to expectant management. A successful outcome was defined as sonographic finding of an empty uterus 6 weeks after randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Empty uterus on sonography or uneventful clinical follow-up was seen in 29/30 women (97%) allocated to curettage compared with 22/29 women (76%) allocated to expectant management (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.03-1.6) with complication rates of 10% versus 10%, respectively (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.21-4.4). In the group allocated to curettage, no woman required re-curettage, while two women (6.7%) underwent hysteroscopy (for other or unknown reasons). In the women allocated to expectant management, curettage was performed in four women (13.8%) and three women (10.3%) underwent hysteroscopy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to a strong patient preference, mainly for expectant management, the targeted sample size could not be included and the trial was stopped prematurely. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women suspected of incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol, curettage is more effective than expectant management. However, expectant management is equally safe and prevents curettage for most of the women. This finding could further restrain the use of curettage in the treatment of first trimester miscarriage. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-82310-97-12066. There were no conflicts of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR3310, http://www.trialregister.nl TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 27 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 June 2012.

Contains fulltext : 125610.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities.Method/designA multicenter randomised controlled trial, organized in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate.Women >= 34 years with heavy menstrual bleeding, a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) score exceeding 150 points and no future child wish can participate in the trial. After informed consent, women will be randomised to a strategy starting with a levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system or a strategy starting with endometrial ablation.The primary outcome is the PBAC score at 24 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction, complications, number of re-interventions, menstrual bleeding pattern, quality of life, sexual function, sick leave and costs. As predictors of effect of intervention we also meaure level of coagulation factors.DiscussonThis study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding.Trial registrationDutch trial register, number NTR2984.

Contains fulltext : 117709.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Medical treatment with misoprostol is a non-invasive and inexpensive treatment option in first trimester miscarriage. However, about 30% of women treated with misoprostol have incomplete evacuation of the uterus. Despite being relatively asymptomatic in most cases, this finding often leads to additional surgical treatment (curettage). A comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical management versus expectant management is lacking in women with incomplete miscarriage after misoprostol. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled trial that assesses the costs and effects of curettage versus expectant management in women with incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage.Eligible women will be randomized, after informed consent, within 24 hours after identification of incomplete evacuation of the uterus by ultrasound scanning. Women are randomly allocated to surgical or expectant management. Curettage is performed within three days after randomization.Primary outcome is the sonographic finding of an empty uterus (maximal diameter of any contents of the uterine cavity < 10 millimeters) six weeks after study entry. Secondary outcomes are patients' quality of life, surgical outcome parameters, the type and number of re-interventions during the first three months and pregnancy rates and outcome 12 months after study entry. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence for the (cost) effectiveness of surgical versus expectant management in women with incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register: NTR3110.