Aetna considers endometrial ablation medically necessary for women who meet all of the following selection criteria:
Menorrhagia* unresponsive to (or with a contraindication to) either:
Dilation and currettage; or
Hormonal therapy or other pharmacotherapy;
(Note: The degree of severity and persistence of the menorrhagia and the failure of prior treatment should be such that the member would otherwise be a candidate for a hysterectomy.)
Endometrial sampling or D&C has been performed within the year prior to the procedure to exclude cancer, pre-cancer or hyperplasia, and the results of the histopathological report have been reviewed before the ablation procedure is scheduled; and
Structural abnormalities (fibroids, polyps) that require surgery or represent a contraindication to an ablation procedure have been excluded; and
Pap smear and gynecologic examination have excluded significant cervical disease.
Aetna considers endometrial ablation experimental and investigational for all other indications because its effectiveness for other indications has not been established.
Aetna considers the following endometrial ablation approaches to be established for treatment of women who meet the selection criteria set forth above:
Chemical ablation with trichloroacetic acid
Electrosurgical ablation (e.g., electric rollerball, resecting loop with electric current, triangular mesh with electrical current)
Menorrhagia (excessive uterine bleeding) affects approximately 20 % of women of reproductive age. It may be due to many causes, including hormonal disorders, fibroids, tumors, or other problems. Pharmacotherapy and surgery are the mainstay treatments. Most commonly, hormonal and non-hormonal medications are followed by dilatation and curettage, and ultimately, in many cases, hysterectomy.
Endometrial ablation techniques have evolved as an alternative to hysterectomy. Ablation techniques (e.g., laser, resecting loop with electric current, electric rollerball, thermal fluid-filled balloon, radiofrequency, freezing, heated saline) remove some of the lining of the uterus in an attempt to control excessive bleeding. After endometrial ablation, pregnancy is not likely to occur.
Current guidelines recommend an endometrial sampling procedure be done prior to the endometrial ablation. The ACOG Practice Bulletin on endometrial ablation (2007) states: “Endometrial sampling, typically with an outpatient technique, can be used to evaluate all women for hyperplasia or malignancy, and results should be reviewed before ablation is scheduled. Women with endometrial hyperplasia or uterine cancer should not undergo endometrial ablation.”
The early techniques of endometrial ablation, introduced in the 1980s and still used today involve the use of a hysteroscope with either a "rollerball" or wire loop through which electrical heat travels to remove (resection) the endometrial lining. After the uterus is filled with fluid to enlarge it for better viewing, the surgeon moves the rollerball back and forth across the lining or uses the wire loop to shave off the tissue. Potential risks of this ablation method include infection, perforation of the uterus, cervical laceration, and fluid overload.
Bren (2001) reviewed some of the new methods of endometrial ablation. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ThermaChoice, the first non-hysteroscopic ablation device to treat excessive uterine bleeding (menorrhagia) due to benign (non-cancerous) causes. The ThermaChoice Uterine Balloon Therapy System (Gynecare, Somerville, NJ) consists of a balloon that is inserted through the neck of the cervix and into the uterus. Through a catheter connected to a controller console, the balloon is inflated with fluid and heated to 188°F (87°C) for 8 mins to destroy the uterine lining.
In 2001, the FDA approved 3 more similar devices. These devices are to be used only in women who have not yet reached menopause and whose child-bearing is completed. The Hydro ThermAblator (BEI Medical Systems Inc, Teterboro, NJ) delivers heated saline solution into the uterus. The heated saline solution is delivered using hysteroscopic guidance. The heated solution destroys the uterine lining in about 10 mins.
The Her Option Uterine Cryoblation Therapy System (CryoGen Inc., San Diego, CA) uses a cryoprobe capable of producing temperatures down to minus 148°F (minus 100°C) at the tip. This extreme cold is applied to the tissue for 10 mins to freeze and destroy the uterine lining. Ultrasound is used to guide and monitor the procedure.
An assessment by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2006) found limited short-term evidence on the safety and effectiveness of endometrial cryotherapy for menorrhagia appears adequate to support the use of this procedure in carefully selected patients. Specialist advisors to NICE stated that the evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials is limited, and that this procedure was one of a number of ablation techniques that uses different energy. The specialist advisors to NICE stated that the procedure appears to be safe, but there are no data available on the incidence of major complications. The theoretical adverse events include thermal injury to the cervix and vagina. Anecdotal adverse events include persistent discharge and endometritis.
The NovaSure Impedance Controlled Endometrial Ablation System (Novacept, Palo Alto, CA) uses a metallic mesh triangular electrode that is expanded out of a slender tube into the uterus. A gentle suction brings the tissue into close contact with the triangular electrode, which delivers electrical current to the endometrial tissue, causing its destruction in about 90 seconds. With this method, there is no hysteroscope or ultrasound, so the physician can not view the uterus during the procedure.
Photodynamic endometrial ablation involves injecting a photosensitive chemical into the uterine cavity through a hysterosalpingography catheter. A probe inserted through the cervix uses a laser to activate the photosensitive chemical, which destroys the endometrium. It can often be carried out under local anesthetic on a day-case basis. An assessment conducted for the NICE (2003) concluded that current evidence on the safety and efficacy of photodynamic endometrial ablation does not appear adequate to support the use of this procedure outside formal research. The NICE's conclusions were based on the "extremely limited" evidence of the safety and effectiveness of this procedure.
An assessment conducted by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2003) concluded that microwave endometrial ablation is an established method. In reaching this conclusion, NICE considered a Cochrane systematic review of endometrial destruction techniques. The systematic review concluded that women undergoing thermal ablation techniques had a similar reduction in bleeding and were as satisfied as women having hysteroscopic resection of the endometrium. The advantages of thermal ablation techniques were that general anesthesia was not required, and the procedures were quicker and easier to perform. The systematic review did not come to any conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the different thermal endometrial destruction techniques. The NICE assessment noted that other studies found that between 70 and 80 % of women having microwave endometrial ablation were satisfied, and that 95 % of women had returned to normal activities within 3 weeks of having the procedure.
Common side effects after endometrial ablation include nausea, vomiting, and a vaginal discharge that can last from days to weeks. Complications of ablation are rare, but may include blood loss requiring a transfusion, perforation of the uterus, or unintended damage to other internal organs.
A number of studies have compared the effectiveness of endometrial ablation techniques, several of which are described below. One randomized study found superior outcomes with electrosurgical ablation with triangular mesh (NovaSure) over balloon thermal ablation (ThermaChoice) for menorrhagia at long-term follow-up. Kleijn and colleagues (2008) evaluated amenorrhea rates, hysterectomy rate, and health-related quality of life (HRQol) associated with the bipolar impedance-controlled endometrial ablation technique (NovaSure) in comparison with balloon ablation technique (ThermaChoice) at 5-year after administration. A total of 126 pre-menopausal women suffering from menorrhagia with a pictorial blood loss assessment count greater than or equal to 150 without intra-cavitary abnormalities were included in this study. They were randomly allocated to bipolar radio-frequency ablation and balloon ablation in a 2:1 ratio. The main outcome measures were amenorrhea rate, hysterectomies, and HRQol as reported at 5-year follow-up. At 5 years of follow-up, the total response rate was 96 % in the bipolar group and 90 % in the balloon group. Amenorrhea was reported in the bipolar group by 48 % of women and in the balloon arm by 32 % (relative risk 1.6 [0.93 to 2.6]). There were 8 women in the bipolar group (9.8 %) and 5 in the balloon group (12.9 %) who had undergone a hysterectomy. Furthermore, there was a significant equal improvement of HRQoL over time in both groups. The authors concluded that at 5-year follow-up, bipolar thermal ablation was superior over balloon ablation in the treatment of menorrhagia.
A study found equivalant outcomes from balloon ablation and rollerball ablation for treatment of menorrhagia. Loffer and Grainger (2002) collected long-term follow-up data from women who participated in a randomized trial comparing uterine balloon therapy (UBT) with rollerball ablation for treatment of menorrhagia. Women treated with endometrial ablation for menorrhagia who were available for 5-year follow-up were included in the analysis. Of 255 women treated under the original protocol, 147 were available to be interviewed 5 years after the procedure. Of these, 25 patients reported hysterectomy, repeat ablation, or dilatation and curettage (D&C) between years 3 and 5, leaving 122 eligible for analysis (61 UBT, 61 rollerball). Of these 122 patients, 58 (95 %) having UBT and 59 (97 %) having rollerball ablation reported normal or less bleeding. Similarly, 93 % and 100 %, respectively, were satisfied with the procedure. Among the total population of 255 women, 42 hysterectomies (21 UBT, 21 rollerball), 5 repeat ablations (3 UBT, 2 rollerball), and 1 D&C (rollerball) were reported by year 5. Thirty-five hysterectomies (83 %) were performed because of bleeding and/or pelvic pain; 1/3 of them were associated with myomas. Nearly 7 of 10 women were cured of menorrhagia without additional intervention 5 years after ablation. The authors concluded that UBT continues to be an effective, simple treatment of menorrhagia, with clinical outcomes similar to those of rollerball ablation at 5-year follow-up.
A randomized trial found radiofrequency ablation superior to thermoablation for treament of menorrhagia. In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, Penninx and colleagues (2010) compared the effectiveness of 2 second-generation ablation techniques, bipolar RF impedance-controlled endometrial ablation and hydro-thermablation in the treatment of menorrhagia. Women with menorrhagia were randomly allocated to bipolar RF ablation (bipolar group) and hydro-thermablation (hydro-therm group). At follow-up, both women and observers remained unaware of the type of treatment that had been performed. The primary outcome was amenorrhea; secondary outcome measures were patient satisfaction and reintervention. A total of 160 women were included in the study, of which 82 were allocated to the bipolar group and 78 to the hydro-therm group. No complications occurred in either of the treatment groups. After 12 months, 87 % (65 of 75) of the patients in the bipolar group were completely satisfied with the result of the treatment compared with 68 % (48 of 71) in the hydro-therm group (relative risk 1.3, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to1.6). The amenorrhea rates were 47 % (35 of 75) in the bipolar group and 24 % (17 of 71) in the hydro-therm group (relative risk 2.0, 95 % CI: 1.2 to 3.1). The relative risks for a re-intervention in the bipolar group compared with the hydro-therm group was 0.29 (95 % CI: 0.12 to 0.67), whereas for hysterectomy, this was 0.49 (95 % CI: 0.15 to1.5). The authors concluded that in the treatment of menorrhagia, bipolar RF endometrial ablation system is superior to hydro-thermablation.
New methods of endometrial ablation are being investigated. In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, Kucuk and Okman (2005) assessed the effectiveness of trichloroacetic acid (TCA) instillation into uterine cavity for the treatment of patents with dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB). A total of 90 women were randomized to receive only TCA or receive a single dose of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog 1 month before the procedure. All subjects underwent an evaluation that included cycle history, body mass index measurement, and trans-vaginal ultrasonography of pelvis, diagnostic hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy. At the end of 12 months, amenorrhea rates in group 1 and group 2 were 26.7 % versus 31.1 %, with pooled amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, and eumenorrhea rates of 95.6 % versus 97.8 %, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups' vis-à-vis post-procedure results. More than 90 % of women who had this procedure were satisfied with the results. There were no observed negative effects or related complications with this treatment. These investigators concluded that an instillation of TCA into uterine cavity produced acceptable results and provided conservative management of DUB. This is in agreement with the findings of a randomized controlled trial by Kucukozkan et al (2004) who reported that endometrial ablation by TCA may readily be performed as an alternative method in the treatment of DUB. These investigators also noted that suppression of endometrium with danazol or especially with goserelin acetate before chemical ablation with TCA resulted in significant success rate.
In a meta-analysis, Daniels et al (2012) examined the relative effectiveness of second generation ablation techniques in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. A total of 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; involving 3,287 women) were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to April 2011. The reference lists of known relevant articles were searched for further articles. Two reviewers independently selected articles without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials involving second generation endometrial destruction techniques for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to medical treatment were selected for analysis. Of the 3 most commonly used techniques, network meta-analysis showed that bipolar radiofrequency and microwave ablation resulted in higher rates of amenorrhea than thermal balloon ablation at around 12 months (odds ratio 2.51, 95 % CI: 1.53 to 4.12, p < 0.001; and 1.66, 1.01 to 2.71, p = 0.05, respectively), but there was no evidence of a convincing difference between the 3 techniques in the number of women dissatisfied with treatment or still experiencing heavy bleeding. Compared with bipolar radio frequency and microwave devices, an increased number of women still experienced heavy bleeding after free fluid ablation (95 % CI: 2.19: 1.07 to 4.50, p = 0.03; and 95 5 CI: 2.91: 1.23 to 6.88, p = 0.02, respectively). Compared with radiofrequency ablation, free fluid ablation was associated with reduced rates of amenorrhea (95 % CI: 0.36, 0.19 to 0.67, p = 0.004) and increased rates of dissatisfaction (95 % CI: 4.79, 1.07 to 21.5, p = 0.04). Of the less commonly used devices, endometrial laser intra-uterine thermotherapy was associated with increased rates of amenorrhea compared with all the other devices, while cryoablation led to a reduced rate compared with bipolar radiofrequency and microwave. The authors concluded that bipolar radiofrequency and microwave ablative devices are more effective than thermal balloon and free fluid ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding with second generation endometrial ablation devices.
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes/ ICD-9 Codes
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
58100 - 58294
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
Catheter, extravascular tissue ablation, any modality (insertable)
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
Excessive or frequent menstruation
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
Malignant neoplasm of corpus uteri, except isthmus
218.0 - 218.9
Other benign neoplasm of corpus uteri
Polyp of corpus uteri
The above policy is based on the following references:
Stabinsky SA, Einstein M, Breen JL. Modern treatments of menorrhagia attributable to dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1999;54(1):61-72.
Barrow C. Balloon endometrial ablation as a safe alternative to hysterectomy. AORN J. 1999;70(1):80, 83-86, 92-96.
Robins JC, Liu J. Alternatives to hysterectomy for the treatment of excessive uterine bleeding. Int J Clin Pract. 2000;54(4):233-237.
Cooper JM, Erickson ML. Global endometrial ablation technologies. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2000;27(2):385-396, viii.
Lethaby A, Shepperd S, Cooke I, et al. Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000329.
Hart R, Magos A. The alternatives to hysterectomy. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;13(2):271-290.
Eskandar MA, Vilos GA, Aletebi FA, et al. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation is an effective alternative to hysterectomy in women with menorrhagia and large uteri. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7(3):339-345.
Weisberg M, Goldrath MH, Berman J, et al. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation using free heated saline for the treatment of menorrhagia. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7(3):311-316.
HGSAdministrators. Endometrial ablation. Medicare Part B Local Medical Review Policy Bulletin No. S-77A. Camp Hill, PA: HGSA; July 31, 1995. Available at: http://www.lmrp.net/lmrp/carrier/a00865/f00s077a.htm. Accessed July 12, 2001.
Perlitz Y, Rahav D, Ben-Ami M. Endometrial ablation using hysteroscopic instillation of hot saline solution into the uterus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;99(1):90-92.
Ravi B, Schiavello H, Chandra P, et al. Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic endomyometrial resection-ablation for menorrhagia. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(8):717-723.
Corson SL. A multicenter evaluation of endometrial ablation by hydro thermablator and rollerball for treatment of menorrhagia. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8(3):359-367.
Jones K, Abbott J, Hawe J, et al. Endometrial laser intrauterine thermotherapy for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding: The first British experience. BJOG. 2001;108(7):749-753.
Neuwirth RS. Cost effective management of heavy uterine bleeding: Ablative methods versus hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;13(4):407-410.
Dutton C, Ackerson L, Phelps-Sandall B. Outcomes after rollerball endometrial ablation for menorrhagia. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(1):35-39.
BEI Medical Systems Co. Inc. Hydro Thermablator Endometrial Ablation System; (Hysteroscopic) Thermal Endometrial Ablation Device. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data. PMA No. 000040. Rockville, MD: FDA; April 20, 2001. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P000040b.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2003.
Abbott JA, Garry R. The surgical management of menorrhagia. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(1):68-78.
Duleba AJ, Heppard MC, Soderstrom RM, Townsend DE. A randomized study comparing endometrial cryoablation and rollerball electroablation for treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003;10(1):17-26.
Townsend DE, Duleba AJ, Wilkes MM. Durability of treatment effects after endometrial cryoablation versus rollerball electroablation for abnormal uterine bleeding: Two-year results of a multicenter randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3):699-701.
State of Minnesota, Health Technology Advisory Committee (HTAC). Surgical alternatives to hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding. Technology Assessment. St. Paul, MN: HTAC; 2000.
Lessard C, Framarin A. Endometrial ablation techniques in the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. AETMIS 02-04 RF. Montreal, QC: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2002.
League DD. Endometrial ablation as an alternative to hysterectomy. AORN J. 2003;77(2):322-324, 327-338.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Balloon thermal endometrial ablation. Interventional Procedure Guidance 6. London, UK: NICE; August 2003.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Free fluid thermal endometrial ablation. Interventional Procedure Guidance 51. London, UK: NICE; 2004.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Microwave endometrial ablation. Interventional Procedure Guidance 7. London, UK: NICE; August 2003.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Photodynamic endometrial ablation. Interventional Procedure Guidance 47. London, UK: NICE; 2004.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Impedance-controlled bipolar radiofrequency ablation for menorrhagia. Interventional Procedure Guidance 104. London, UK: NICE; December 2004.
Bongers MY, Mol BW, Brolmann HA. Current treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Maturitas. 2004;47(3):159-174.
Garside R, Stein K, Wyatt K, et al. A cost-utility analysis of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation techniques for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. BJOG. 2004;111(10):1103-1114.
Garside R, Stein K, Wyatt K, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(3):1-168.
Degen AF, Gabrecht T, Mosimann L, et al. Photodynamic endometrial ablation for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding: A preliminary report. Lasers Surg Med. 2004;34(1):1-4.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Endometrial ablation for menorrhagia. Pre-assessment No. 30. Ottawa, ON: CCOHTA; 2004.
Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Endometrial ablation techniques for chronic refractory menorrhagia. MSAC Reference 31. Canberra, ACT: MSAC; 2005:1-145.
NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. Fluid-filled thermal balloon and microwave endometrial ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Glasgow, Scotland: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS); 2004.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Fluid-filled thermal balloon and microwave endometrial ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Technology Appraisal Guidance 78. London, UK: NICE; 2004.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Medical Advisory Secretariat. Thermal balloon endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Health Technology Literature Review. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MAS); September 2004:1-85.
Kucukozkan T, Kadioglu BG, Uygur D, et al. Chemical ablation of endometrium with trichloroacetic acid. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;84(1):41-46.
Kucuk M, Okman TK. Intrauterine instillation of trichloroacetic acid is effective for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(1):189-194.
Jack SA, Cooper KG, Seymour J, et al. A randomised controlled trial of microwave endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation in the outpatient setting: Patient acceptability, treatment outcome and costs. BJOG. 2005;112(8):1109-1116.
Cooley S, Yuddandi V, Walsh T, et al. The medium- and long-term outcome of endometrial ablative techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121(2):233-235.
Lethaby A, Hickey M, Garry R. Endometrial destruction techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD001501.
Comite d'Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques (CEDIT). Impedance controlled endometrial ablation system (Novasure) [summary]. CEDIT Recommendations. Ref. 05.09/Re1/06. Paris, France; CEDIT; March 3, 2006.
Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, Farquhar C. Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD003855.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Endometrial cryotherapy for menorrhagia. Interventional Procedure Guidance 157. London, UK: NICE; March 2006.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Endometrial ablation. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 81. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1233-1248.
Onoglu A, Taskin O, Inal M, etal. Comparison of the long-term histopathologic and morphologic changes after endometrial rollerball ablation and resection: A prospective randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(1):39-42.
Della Badia C, Nyirjesy P, Atogho A. Endometrial ablation devices: Review of a manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(4):436-441.
Ahonkallio S, Martikainen H, Santala M. Endometrial thermal balloon ablation has a beneficial long-term effect on menorrhagia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(1):107-110.
Kleijn JH, Engels R, Bourdrez P, et al. Five-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial comparing NovaSure and ThermaChoice endometrial ablation. BJOG. 2008;115(2):193-198.
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Indications and options for endometrial ablation. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S236-S240.
Hart RJ, Hickey M, Maouris P, Buckett W. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD004992.
Loffer FD, Grainger D. Five-year follow-up of patients participating in a randomized trial of uterine balloon therapy versus rollerball ablation for treatment of menorrhagia. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002;9(4):429-435.
Wade SW, Magee G, Metz L, Broder MS. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. J Reprod Med. 2006;51(7):553-562.
Chapa HO. Utility of in-office endometrial ablation: A prospective cohort study of endometrial ablation under local anesthesia. J Reprod Med. 2008;53(11):827-831.
Longinotti MK, Jacobson GF, Hung YY, Learman LA. Probability of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1214-1220.
Baggish MS, Bhati A. Intestinal injuries asscoiated with the Novasure bipolar device. J Gynecol Surg. 2009;25(2):73-78.
Sambrook AM, Bain C, Parkin DE, Cooper KG. A randomised comparison of microwave endometrial ablation with transcervical resection of the endometrium: Follow up at a minimum of 10 years. BJOG. 2009;116(8):1033-1037.
Sambrook AM, Cooper KG, Campbell MK, Cook JA. Clinical outcomes from a randomised comparison of microwave endometrial ablation with thermal balloon endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. BJOG. 2009;116(8):1038-1045.
Lethaby A, Hickey M, Garry R, Penninx J. Endometrial resection / ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD001051.
Pohar R, Cunningham J. Devices for endometrial ablation therapy in the outpatient setting: Clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2009.
Middleton LJ, Champaneria R, Daniels JP, et al; International Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis Collaboration Group. Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients. BMJ. 2010;341:c3929.
Sambrook AM, Jack SA, Cooper KG. Outpatient microwave endometrial ablation: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial without endometrial preparation versus standard day surgery with endometrial preparation. BJOG. 2010;117(4):493-496.
de Souza SS, Camargos AF, de Rezende CP, et al. A randomized prospective trial comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Contraception. 2010;81(3):226-231.
Penninx JP, Mol BW, Engels R, et al. Bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation compared with hydrothermablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(4):819-826.
Stovall DW. Alternatives to hysterectomy: Focus on global endometrial ablation, uterine fibroid embolization, and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. Menopause. 2011;18(4):437-444.
Kopeika J, Edmonds SE, Mehra G, Hefni MA. Does hydrothermal ablation avoid hysterectomy? Long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(3):207.e1-e8.
Munro MG, Dickersin K, Clark MA, et al. The Surgical Treatments Outcomes Project for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding: Summary of an Agency for Health Research and Quality-sponsored randomized trial of endometrial ablation versus hysterectomy for women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Menopause. 2011;18(4):445-452.
Bhattacharya S, Middleton LJ, Tsourapas A, et al.; International Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis Collaborative Group. Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena for heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(19):1-252.
Daniels JP, Middleton LJ, Champaneria R, et al; International Heavy Menstrual Bleeding IPD Meta-analysis Collaborative Group. Second generation endometrial ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding: Network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e2564.
Herman MC, Penninx JP, Mol BW, Bongers MY. Ten-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar endometrial ablation with balloon ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. BJOG. 2013;120(8):966-970.
Lethaby A, Penninx J, Hickey M, et al. Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(8):CD001501.
Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.