• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology >Endometrial ablation.
【24h】

Endometrial ablation.

机译：子宫内膜消融术。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although endometrial ablation has now been accepted practice for more than 20 years, it continues to be a source of research, controversy and speculation. This is illustrated by the 175 articles found in PubMed between the years 2000 and 2003 under the search term 'endometrial ablation' commissioned as part of the preparation for this article. RECENT FINDINGS: The so-called first-generation methods (laser, resection, rollerball) have now got long-term follow-up data of up to 20 years. A few of the second-generation devices have published long-term follow-up data of 5 years. All of the second-generation devices assessed in randomized trials with the first-generation methods compare favourably; however, there are few data on cost effectiveness. Similarly, there are few data comparing endometrial ablation with the Mirena intrauterine device. SUMMARY: Conventional endometrial ablation has been extensively validated; however, many of the newer techniques have inadequate patient numbers orlengths of follow-up on which to evaluate their long-term efficacy, safety or cost effectiveness fully. The anticipated decline in hysterectomy rates with the advent of endometrial destruction methods has not occurred, and this may indicate a lower threshold for surgical management.
机译：审查目的：尽管子宫内膜切除术现已被接受20多年，但它仍然是研究，争议和推测的来源。 2000年至2003年间在PubMed中找到的175篇文章对此进行了说明，该文章作为本文准备工作的一部分，被委托使用“子宫内膜消融”搜索词。最近的发现：所谓的第一代方法（激光，切除，滚球）现已获得长达20年的长期随访数据。一些第二代设备已发布了5年的长期随访数据。在随机试验中使用第一代方法评估的所有第二代设备均具有可比性;但是，关于成本效益的数据很少。同样，很少有数据将子宫内膜切除术与Mirena宫内节育器进行比较。总结：常规子宫内膜切除术已得到广泛验证。然而，许多新技术的患者数量或随访时间不足，无法充分评估其长期疗效，安全性或成本效益。随着子宫内膜破坏方法的出现，子宫切除率的预期下降尚未发生，这可能表明手术管理的门槛较低。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号