Lara Barragán SDE, Lara Barragán BIA, Santoyo HS, Leija TAA

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 231-236
PDF size: 581.39 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a common gynecological complaint that significantly affects women’s quality of life. This retrospective observational study compared clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in women aged 25-45 years with AUB treated with either endometrial ablation or the levonorgestrelreleasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). A total of 51 patients treated between 2020 and 2023 at a private hospital in Mexico were included. Main outcomes assessed included menstrual bleeding reduction (via PBAC score), need for additional surgical intervention, and patient satisfaction at six months. Both treatments were effective, but endometrial ablation showed superior results: greater bleeding reduction (p = 0.0004), lower surgical reintervention rate (20 vs. 67.7%, p = 0.0023), and higher satisfaction (75 vs. 48.4%, p = 0.0041). No significant differences were found in treatment response based on AUB etiology (PALM-COEIN classification). These findings suggest that endometrial ablation may be a more effective option for women without reproductive desires who seek a definitive solution for AUB. The LNG-IUS remains a valid alternative for patients preferring a reversible treatment. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are recommended to validate these results and assess sustained quality-of-life outcomes.

REFERENCES

1. Melado VL, Novelle GM, Hernández GA, Muńoz MM, OrdásSTJ. Comparación entre el sistema intrauterino de liberación delevonorgestrel y la ablación endometrial en el tratamiento de lahemorragia uterina disfuncional. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2008; 73(4): 263-267. doi: 10.4067/S0717-75262008000400008.

2. Escobar PD, Alvarado SCL, Valdés BP, Varas RC. Uso del DIU conlevonorgestrel como alternativa a la histerectomía en pacientes conalto riesgo quirúrgico. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2007; 72 (4): 217-221. doi: 10.4067/S0717-75262007000400004.

3. Sepúlveda-Agudelo J, Sepúlveda-Sanguino AJ. Sangrado uterinoanormal y PALM COEIN. Ginecol Obstet Méx. 2020; 88 (1): 59-67.doi: 10.24245/gom.v88i1.3467.

4. Whitaker L, Critchley HO. Abnormal uterine bleeding. Best PractRes Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 34: 54-65. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.11.012.

5. Bahamondes L, Ali M. Recent advances in managing andunderstanding menstrual disorders. F1000Prime Rep. 2015; 7: 33.doi: 10.12703/P7-33.

6. Rodríguez-Daza HO, Miranda ÁD, Ruiz-Aguilar LA. Ablaciónendometrial: tipos, técnicas y evidencias de su utilidad. revisiónde la literatura. Repert Med Cir. 2014; 23 (2): 102-111. Disponibleen: https://revistas.fucsalud.edu.co/index.php/repertorio/article/view/724

7. Bofill-Rodriguez M, Lethaby A, Grigore M, Brown J, Hickey M,Farquhar C. Endometrial resection and ablation techniques forheavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 1 (1):CD001501. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001501.pub5.

8. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice bulletin no.128: diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-agedwomen. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120 (1): 197-206. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318262e320.

9. Beelen P, van den Brink MJ, Herman MC, Geomini PMAJ, Dekker JH,Duijnhoven RG, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systemversus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. Am JObstet Gynecol. 2021; 224 (2): 187.e1-187.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.016.

10. Salazar-Vargas V. Sangrado uterino anormal: abordaje y manejo.Rev Méd Sinerg. 2022; 7 (7): e869. Disponible en: https://revistamedicasinergia.com/index.php/rms/article/view/869

11. Benetti-Pinto CL, Rosa-E-Silva ACJS, Yela DA, Soares-Júnior JM.Abnormal uterine bleeding. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017; 39 (7):358-368. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603807.