4.7 Article

Treatment of symptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis with an estrogen-progestogen combination versus low-dose norethindrone acetate

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 84, 期 5, 页码 1375-1387

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.03.083

关键词

endometriosis; dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia; pelvic pain; progestogen; estrogen-progestogen combination; medical treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an estrogen-progesteron combination versus low-dose norethindrone acetate in the treatment of persistent pain after surgery for symptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Academic center. Patient(s): Ninety women with recurrent moderate or severe pelvic pain after unsuccessful conservative surgery for symptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis. Intervention(s): Twelve-month, continuous treatment with oral ethinyl E-2, 0.01 mg, plus cyproterone acetate, 3 mg/day, or norethindrone acetate, 2.5 mg/day. Main Outcome Measure(s): Degree of satisfaction with therapy. Result(s): Seven women in the ethinyl E2 plus cyprotherone acetate arm and five in the norethindrone acetate arm withdrew because of side effects (n=5), treatment inefficacy (n=6), or loss to follow-up (n=1). At 12 months, dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyscezia scores were substantially reduced without major between-group differences. Both regimens induced minor unfavourable variations in the serum lipid profile. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, 28 (62%) out of 45 patients in the ethinyl E2 plus cyproterone acetate group and 33 (73%) out of 45 in the norethindrone acetate group were satisfied with the treatment received. Conclusion(s): Low-dose norethindrone acetate could be considered an effective, tolerable, and inexpensive first-choice medical alternative to repeat surgery for treating symptomatic rectovaginal endometriotic lesions in patients who do not seek conception.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据