We actually recruited patients faster than we expected, and we treated 263 patients over a two-year period for where we had a representative sample, and again, all of this is in fine detail in the paper. These patients matched the same as those in our previous studies, and we re happy with treating patients with genuine excessive menstrual loss. What we found in our operative data was despite the fact that endometrial resections are considerably quicker than most in the literature we ve done something like 2,500 - microwave was still statistically quicker with an operation time of only 11 minutes. There s no difference in the post-operative stay of analgesia requirements. The satisfaction at two years is now remarkably statistically significantly better in the patients after microwave ablation than endometrial resection.
Acceptability does seem to be better and certainly statistically significant in the microwave group.
I m not quite sure why that is but certainly patients looking back on it two years later have a higher rate of acceptability. When we come to the effect on bleeding scores and pain scores, both treatments have an identical baseline and both treatments have a huge statistically significant reduction in bleeding score from treating for two years. Likewise, the pain score treated for two years but now at two years, the bleeding score after MEA is statistically significantly less than after resection. Using the short form 36, which has quality of life, the two bottom lines in which the yellow disappears appeared are pre-treatment levels, and these have been statistically significantly improved back into the normal range of two years with both groups. This is undoubtedly a quality of life improvement for both treatments.