Search

Objective: To compare electrodiathermy with helium thermal coagulation in laparoscopic treatment of mild-to-moderate endometriosis., Design: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial., Setting: A UK endometriosis centre., Population: Non-pregnant women aged 16-50 years with a clinical diagnosis of mild-to-moderate endometriosis., Methods: If mild or moderate endometriosis was confirmed at laparoscopy, women were randomised to laparoscopic treatment with electrodiathermy or helium thermal coagulator., Main Outcome Measures: Cyclical pain and dyspareunia (rated on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, VAS), quality of life at baseline and at 6, 12 and 36 weeks following surgery, operative blood loss and surgical complications., Results: A total of 192 women were randomised. Of these, 155 (81%) completed the primary outcome point at 12 weeks. In an intention-to-treat analysis, VAS scores for cyclical pain were significantly lower in the electrodiathermy group compared with the helium group at 12 weeks (mean difference, 9.43 mm; 95% CI 0.46, 18.40 mm; P = 0.039) and across all time points (mean difference, 10.13 mm; 95% CI 3.48, 16.78 mm; P = 0.003). A significant difference in dyspareunia also favoured electrodiathermy at 12 weeks (mean difference, 11.66 mm; 95% CI 1.39, 21.93 mm; P = 0.026). These effects were smaller than the proposed minimum important difference of 18.00 mm, however. Differences in some aspects of quality of life favoured electrodiathermy. There was no significant difference in operative blood loss (fold-change with helium as reference, 1.43; 95% CI 0.96, 2.15; P = 0.081)., Conclusions: Although electrodiathermy was statistically superior to helium ablation in reducing cyclical pain and dyspareunia, these effects may be too small to be clinically significant., Tweetable Abstract: Helium coagulation is not superior to electrodiathermy in laparoscopic treatment of mild-to-moderate endometriosis., (© 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Introduction and Hypothesis: Spinal anaesthesia (SA) and general anaesthesia (GA) are widely used techniques for vaginal surgery for pelvic floor disorders with inconclusive evidence of the superiority of either. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a full scale RCT aiming to examine the effect of anaesthetic mode for vaginal surgery on operative, patient reported and length of hospital stay (LOHS) outcomes., Methods: Patients undergoing vaginal surgery, recruited through a urogynaecology service in a University teaching hospital, were randomised to receive either GA or SA. Patients were followed up for 12 weeks postoperatively. Pain was measured on a visual analogue scale; nausea was assessed with a four-point verbal rating scale. Patient's subjective perception of treatment outcome, quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ) on vaginal symptoms and the SF-36 questionnaire., Results: Sixty women were randomised, 29 to GA and 31 to SA. The groups were similar in terms of age and type of vaginal surgery performed. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups with regard to pain, nausea, quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes as well as length of stay in the postoperative recovery room, use of analgesia postoperatively and LOHS., Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that a full RCT is feasible and should focus on the length of hospital stay in a subgroup of patients undergoing vaginal surgery where SA may help to facilitate enhanced recovery or day surgery.