Health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction after global endometrial ablation for menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders: a follow-up survey and systematic review

Sherif A. El-Nashar, Matthew R. Hopkins, Sunni A. Barnes, Rajiv K. Pruthi, John B. Gebhart, William A. Cliby, Abimbola O. Famuyide

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe health-related quality of life and satisfaction after global endometrial ablation in women with bleeding disorders and a systematic review of the literature. Study Design: A follow-up survey was mailed to 36 patients with bleeding disorders and 110 reference patients (no coagulopathies) who underwent global endometrial ablation for menorrhagia. The survey included a generic (SF-12) and menorrhagia multi-attribute utility scale questionnaires. Results: Ninety-six women (66%) responded. The total menorrhagia multiattribute utility scale score increased from 35-100 in bleeding disorder cohort (P = .03) and from 48-100 in the reference cohort (P < .001). Although postablation SF-12 mental domain scores were comparable in both cohorts (55 vs 55; P = .67), physical domain scores were lower in the bleeding disorder cohort (50 vs 56; P < .001). High satisfaction was reported by both cohorts (95% vs 84%; P = .60). Conclusion: Global endometrial ablation improved health-related quality of life for women with bleeding disorders and had high satisfaction rates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)348.e1-348.e7
JournalAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology
Volume202
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Keywords

  • bleeding disorder
  • endometrial ablation
  • excessive menstrual bleeding
  • menorrhagia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction after global endometrial ablation for menorrhagia in women with bleeding disorders: a follow-up survey and systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this