Hysterectomy vs. resectoscopic endometrial ablation for the control of abnormal uterine bleeding. A cost-comparative study.

This study compared the costs of endometrial ablation using the uterine resectoscope to those of hysterectomy in a group of patients treated for abnormal uterine bleeding who were enrolled in a national managed health care organization. The cost of endometrial ablation during the periprocedural period was significantly lower than that of hysterectomy, with much of the difference coming from the hospitalization required for the latter procedure. The postprocedural cost for ablation was higher than for hysterectomy owing to the need for second ablations or hysterectomy in 13 of the 85 ablation patients. Preprocedure costs were not different between ablation and hysterectomy. A reanalysis of the data, however, that excluded patients who required a second ablation or hysterectomy suggested that these additional procedures were responsible for the higher postprocedural costs in the ablation group. Resectoscopic endometrial ablation for the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding resulted in lower periprocedure costs and lower overall treatment costs to the health plan in the groups studied as compared with hysterectomy. Greater familiarity with the technique of resectoscopic endometrial ablation, improved patient selection for the procedure and the use of appropriate pharmacotherapy for suppressing endometrial growth prior to ablation probably substantially improve the rate of success, reduce postprocedural costs and further enhance the cost advantage of this procedure.