Quality of life, anxiety and depression in women treated with hysteroscopic endometrial resection or ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and Objectives: Hysteroscopic endometrial resection (ER) or global endometrial ablation (GEA) are feasible methods to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess patient’s quality of life (QoL) in women treated with ER/GEA compared to hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches in MEDLINE Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PROSPERO and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted from their inception to July 2022. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of premenopausal women with HMB randomized to conservative surgical treatment (ER/GEA) or hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the evaluation of QoL using the SF-36 score. Results: Twelve RCTs (2773 women) were included in the analysis. Women treated with hysteroscopic ER/GEA showed significantly lower scores for the SF-36 general health perception (mean difference (MD) −8.56 [95% CI −11.75 to −5.36]; I2 = 0%), social function (MD −12.90 [95% CI −23.90 to −1.68]; I2 = 91%), emotional role limitation (MD −4.64 [95% CI −8.43 to −0.85]; I2 = 0%) and vitality (MD −8.01 [95% CI −14.73 to −1.30]; I2 = 74%) domains relative to hysterectomy. Anxiety, depression scores and complication rates were similar between treatments. Relative to uterine balloon therapy, amenorrhea was more common with EA/GER (relative risk 1.51 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.20] I2 = 28%), but posttreatment satisfaction was similar. Conclusions: Women’s perception of QoL might be seen to be less improved after hysteroscopic ER/GEA rather than hysterectomy. However, such findings need to be confirmed by additional trials due to the high number of outdated studies and recent improvements in hysteroscopic instrumentation and techniques