It was reported that MEA is not only effective at reducing menstrual symptoms but also achieves higher levels of satisfaction and acceptability, simple to learn, faster to perform, less expensive and is acceptable under local anesthetic and acceptable for use in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Kevin G. Cooper from Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, UK, and team reported the outcomes at a minimum of 10 years post-procedure in 129 women who underwent MEA and 134 who underwent TCRE for heavy menstrual loss. The baseline characteristics were similar in all the women.

According to the report, 77 MEA-treated women (60%) and 70 TCRE-treated women (52%) were totally or generally satisfied with treatment; the difference is not statistically significant, the study team notes.

Bleeding and pain scores were highly significantly decreased and similar following both MEA and TCRE, achieving amenorrhea rates of 85% and 88%, respectively.

After 10 years, significantly fewer women in the MEA arm had hysterectomy (17% versus 28%) than the TCRE arm.

With the known operative advantages, lower costs and fewer hysterectomies, it is clear that MEA is more effective and efficient treatment for heavy menstrual loss than TCRE, Dr. Cooper and colleagues conclude.

Although not quite as versatile as TCRE, they note, it can also treat the majority of endometrial cavities including those with cavities up to 12 cm and those with nonobstructing submucosal fibroids.