Clinical UM Guideline

This document addresses endometrial ablation. Ablation or destruction of the endometrium is used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved multiple devices for endometrial ablation using a variety of approaches, including, but not limited to: laser, electrical wire loop, rollerball using electric current, thermal ablation using a liquid-filled balloon, microwaves, electrode array, or cryosurgery.

Note: For a high-level overview of this document, please see "Summary for Members and Families" below.

Medically Necessary:

Endometrial ablation is considered medically necessary when the individual meets all of the following criteria (A through D):

1. Is premenopausal; and
2. Has abnormal uterine bleeding; and
3. Has any one of the following:
   1. Failed prior hormone therapy; or
   2. Declined hormone therapy; or
   3. Contraindications to hormone therapy;
      and
4. Has no evidence of polyps or other surgically correctable cause of bleeding on sonogram or hysteroscopy.

Endometrial ablation is considered medically necessary for treatment of residual menstrual bleeding resulting from medically necessary gender-affirming androgen therapy.

Not Medically Necessary:

Endometrial ablation is considered not medically necessary when the criteria above have not been met.

This document describes clinical studies and expert recommendations, and explains when endometrial ablation is clinically appropriate. The following summary does not replace the clinical criteria or other information in this document. The summary may not contain all of the relevant criteria or information. This summary is not medical advice. Please check with your healthcare provider for any advice about your health.

Key Information

The endometrium is the lining of the uterus (womb). Ablation is a surgical procedure that removes, destroys, or permanently changes an area of tissue that is causing a health problem. Endometrial ablation is used to reduce or stop abnormal bleeding from the uterus. It works by removing or destroying the lining of the uterus. Different methods may use heat, cold, radiofrequency energy, or other approaches.

Endometrial ablation may help some people who have abnormal uterine bleeding and have not improved with hormone therapy, cannot use hormone therapy, or do not want hormone therapy. It is usually considered only when pregnancy is not planned in the future. Before the procedure, the healthcare provider should check for causes of bleeding such as polyps or other problems inside the uterus that may need a different treatment.

What the Studies Show

Studies show that endometrial ablation can reduce heavy menstrual bleeding for many people. Some people stop having periods after the procedure, but this does not happen for everyone. Some people may still have bleeding or pain and may need more treatment later, including hysterectomy, which is surgery to remove the uterus.

Endometrial ablation is often done without a hospital stay, and recovery may be faster than recovery after hysterectomy. Like any procedure, it has risks, including infection, burns, injury to the uterus or nearby organs, and other complications.

When Endometrial Ablation May Be Clinically Appropriate

Endometrial ablation may be clinically appropriate when:

• The person has not reached menopause; and
• The person has abnormal uterine bleeding; and
• Hormone therapy has not worked, was declined, or should not be used; and
• Testing does not show polyps or another correctable cause of bleeding.

Endometrial ablation may also be clinically appropriate for ongoing menstrual bleeding related to gender-affirming testosterone therapy.

When Endometrial Ablation Is Not Clinically Appropriate

Endometrial ablation is not clinically appropriate when the clinical criteria described above are not met.

(Return to Description)

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this document are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.

When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above when criteria are not met.

Summary

Evidence supports endometrial ablation (EA) as a uterus-sparing treatment option for appropriately selected individuals with abnormal uterine bleeding when medical therapy is unsuccessful, declined, or contraindicated. Across guidelines, reviews, and clinical studies, the central themes are appropriate individual selection, exclusion of structural or malignant causes of bleeding, and counseling about persistent symptoms or later reintervention. Contemporary data continue to support meaningful bleeding reduction and reported satisfaction, while reinforcing that outcomes vary by underlying pathology and clinical context. Evidence specific to persistent or breakthrough bleeding during testosterone therapy supports individualized evaluation and management for individuals whose bleeding continues despite gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Discussion

Evolution of Techniques

Roller ball electrosurgery was the earliest hysteroscopic approach to EA, and it provided the benchmark for subsequent device clearances by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Laberge, 2017). The FDA approval of subsequent devices, designed explicitly for the purpose of endometrial ablation, was at least partially based on results of randomized trials that compared outcomes from these newer devices with those of roller ball ablation techniques, and in general these studies suggested equivalent reductions in abnormal uterine bleeding. Hysteroscopic techniques now include Nd:YAG laser, monopolar resection, and roller ball instruments, each used under direct uterine visualization. Non hysteroscopic, or second generation, systems include thermal balloon devices (ThermaChoice^® Uterine Balloon Therapy System [J and J Ethicon Gynecare, Somerville, New Jersey]), cryosurgical devices (Her Option™ Uterine Cryoablation Therapy™ System [CooperSurgical^®, Trumbull, Connecticut]), radio frequency devices (NovaSure^® Endometrial Ablation System [Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, Massachusetts]), microwave systems (Microsulis Microwave Endometrial Ablation System [Microsulis Medical, Waterloo, United Kingdom]), and hydrothermal ablation devices (Hydro ThermAblator^® Endometrial Ablation System [Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, Massachusetts]). These devices have been reported to simplify the learning curve for operators. Procedures are frequently performed in outpatient settings with paracervical block or oral analgesia.

Professional Society Guidance: United States

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises that EA is appropriate only after medical therapy fails or is contraindicated and when childbearing is complete, with malignancy excluded before treatment (ACOG, 2013, reaffirmed 2019). ACOG's menstrual suppression consensus supports a stepwise approach by placing hormonal methods within the primary medical-management pathway and by treating fertility-ending procedures such as endometrial ablation and hysterectomy as options that are not first-line. The same guidance recognizes testosterone as a method to achieve amenorrhea in transgender and gender-diverse individuals and describes additional progestin therapy as a treatment consideration when bleeding continues (ACOG, 2022). A Society for Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) systematic review supports EA for ovulatory or endometrial bleeding disorders yet recommends hysterectomy when assurance of amenorrhea, less pain or avoidance of further therapy is preferred (Wheeler, 2012). The American College of Radiology (ACR) assigns EA a rating of usually not appropriate in most fibroid scenarios because treatment failure is higher in the presence of submucosal fibroids, while it considers the procedure possibly appropriate when a solitary 3-centimeter intramural fibroid coexists with diffuse adenomyosis (ACR, 2018). The Endocrine Society notes that EA may be used for persistent bleeding in testosterone-treated transgender individuals who meet criteria for gonadectomy (Hembree, 2017).

Evidence in transgender and gender-diverse individuals using testosterone also supports retaining a pathway for residual bleeding. A systematic review found that testosterone usually produces menstrual suppression within 6 to 12 months, but persistent or breakthrough bleeding may occur and should prompt individualized evaluation for adherence, hormone levels, and other gynecologic causes (van Vugt, 2026). In a retrospective cohort of individuals with breakthrough bleeding after at least 1 year of testosterone use, medication changes were not clearly superior to observation alone, supporting goal-directed counseling and preserving procedural options for refractory bleeding in appropriately selected individuals (Grimstad, 2024).

Professional Society Guidance: International

In 2024, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) reaffirmed recommendations for EA to treat benign abnormal uterine bleeding unresponsive to medical therapy and added a consensus recommendation that ablation may be undertaken at the same sitting as hysteroscopic removal of intracavitary lesions, although the recommendation was based on a limited evidence consensus statement (Leyland, 2024).  

Effectiveness

A Cochrane review of 28 trials including 4287 participants found no clinically important difference in treatment success between first- and second-generation modalities. First-generation ablation devices require direct hysteroscopic visualization and include roller ball or loop electrode ablation. Second-generation devices do not require direct visualization and include thermal balloon, microwave, thermal free‐fluid, radiofrequency and cryotherapy ablation. This review found that second-generation EA techniques are easier to learn and to perform, are equally safe and effective, and require a mean 14-minute shorter operating time (Bofill, 2019).

A 2023 Cochrane overview that combined direct and network evidence across 27 randomized studies ranked second-line options for heavy menstrual bleeding by participant satisfaction at 1 year. Minimally invasive hysterectomy held the highest probability of being most satisfactory, open hysterectomy ranked second, while non-resectoscopic second-generation endometrial ablation techniques occupied an intermediate position, outperforming resectoscopic ablation and all medical therapies. The odds of being very or somewhat satisfied were roughly 8-fold higher with minimally invasive hysterectomy and about 1.6-fold higher with non-resectoscopic ablation when each was compared with the LNG-IUS, underscoring that ablation offers clinically meaningful but not maximal participant-reported benefit (Rodriguez, 2023).

The randomized trial of the Minerva^® Endometrial Ablation System (Minerva Surgical, Redwood City, California) demonstrated a 93% success rate and 72% amenorrhea rate at 12 months, exceeding roller ball results with a mean treatment time of 3 minutes (Laberge, 2017). Earlier objective performance criteria testing of Minerva, based on a Food and Drug Administration analysis of success rates from 5 previously approved devices, showed that 96% of participants achieved pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores of 75 or lower and that nearly 70% achieved amenorrhea at 1 year (Laberge, 2015).

In a single center adenomyosis cohort, bleeding was reduced by approximately two thirds at 3 years, although one fourth of participants experienced recurrence between years 1 and 3 (Philip, 2018). Long term data from the MIRA trial revealed that EA and the LNG-IUS resulted in similarly low median scores of zero (0) on the pictorial blood loss assessment chart, indicating minimal menstrual bleeding. However, the cumulative rate of reintervention was lower after EA because repeat ablations were not required in that arm (Huijs, 2024).

A multicenter retrospective comparison of ablation with and without concomitant LNG-IUS placement found that, after adjustment for baseline differences and follow-up imbalance, time to hysterectomy did not differ between groups. Early postoperative pelvic pain was more frequent when an LNG-IUS was placed at the time of ablation. These findings do not support adding a requirement for concomitant LNG-IUS placement as a condition of coverage (Ferrigni, 2026).

Safety

Review of 829 Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) reports indicated that genital tract or skin burns accounted for the majority of adverse events, with hydrothermal devices responsible for nearly all injuries, whereas radio frequency devices were implicated in most reports of sepsis and thermal injuries to bowel or the uterine wall (Brown, 2012). Four deaths were reported, 2 after radio frequency ablation, 1 after thermal balloon therapy and 1 after cryotherapy. A population‑based cohort analysis comparing 4776 individuals who underwent EA to 229,945 who received medical management found no significant difference in endometrial cancer rates (age‑adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 1.89) or time to diagnosis (median 237 days after ablation vs. 299 days with medical management) over a median follow‑up of 4 years (Dood, 2014). A registry study of individuals (n=5484) found no significant increase in overall cancer incidence and reported standardized incidence ratios below 1 for both endometrial and breast cancer, suggesting no excess malignancy risk after EA (Soini, 2017). Thermal balloon ablation showed similar complication rates in individuals with and without prior cesarean section, with no procedure-related uterine rupture in the cesarean cohort (Enzelsberger, 2024). A multicenter series of bipolar radio frequency ablation documented an 85% success rate, a 4.5% overall complication rate and satisfaction that exceeded 80% even among individuals with prior transverse cesarean deliveries (Alvarez López, 2025).

Long Term Durability

A 2021 Cochrane review of 10 trials offers a nuanced perspective on outcomes following endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) versus hysterectomy, acknowledging the varying profiles of different hysterectomy approaches. While this review found no clear evidence of a material difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events when comparing EA/ER to open hysterectomy or minimally invasive hysterectomy, it noted that open or unspecified hysterectomy was associated with a greater risk of infection or serious bleeding. There were no significant differences in the rates of adverse events for EA/ER compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. The review also noted that individuals generally returned to usual activities sooner after ablation than after any hysterectomy approach, a key advantage for shared decision-making. However, this faster recovery was balanced by lower long-term durability. Moderate-certainty evidence from the analysis showed that repeat surgery for treatment failure occurred in about 13% of individuals within 12 months of ablation, compared with none after total hysterectomy. The risk of needing a reintervention remained significantly higher (a risk ratio of 16.75) 2 years after EA/ER compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. This information is crucial for contextualizing the subsequent hysterectomy rates reported in large cohort and registry studies (Rodriguez, 2021).

A retrospective cohort of 901 individuals treated with EA/ER between 1990 and 1997 reported that 23% later underwent hysterectomy. Three fourths of those procedures occurred within 5 years of ablation, indicating durable benefit for most participants over more than 2 decades (Kalampokas, 2017).

A claims analysis of 76,446 individuals treated from 2002 through 2017 showed a cumulative hysterectomy incidence of 16% at 5 years, 23% at 10 years and 29% at 15 years, with younger age, complex bleeding diagnosis, and prior abdominal surgery increasing risk. Additional surgeon experience slightly reduced the risk for reintervention (McGee, 2024).

Several radiofrequency ablation cohorts provide additional contemporary context for counseling and individual selection. In a NovaSure cohort, hysterectomy after completed ablation occurred in 11.4% of individuals, most within 2 years, while 19.4% required additional oral therapy for persistent menstrual symptoms. Higher body mass index, longer uterine cavity length, and shorter ablation duration were associated with later hysterectomy, and adenomyosis was identified in approximately half of hysterectomy specimens after failed ablation (Meijer, 2025). In a larger radiofrequency ablation series with long-term follow-up, most interviewed respondents reported durable bleeding reduction years after treatment, with high satisfaction and no further surgery for most of those interviewed. Hysterectomy after ablation was often related to persistent bleeding, pain, fibroids, hyperplasia, or malignancy, reinforcing the importance of preprocedure evaluation for structural and endometrial pathology (Strobel, 2026).

Prospective data for the AEGEA Vapor System™ (currently known as the Mara™ Water Vapor Ablation System [CooperSurgical^®, Trumbull, Connecticut]) demonstrated that 79% of participants met bleeding endpoints at 12 months and that more than 90% were satisfied, with no serious device-related events (Levie, 2019).

The Cerene^® Cryotherapy Device (Channel Medsystems, Inc., Emeryville, California) program reported no serious device-related events and sustained menstrual and quality of life improvements through 3 years, although 12 hysterectomies and 5 pregnancies were recorded between years 1 and 3 (Curlin, 2021; Curlin, 2022).

Some of the above studies involve the use of the ThermaChoice Uterine Balloon Therapy System and the Microwave Endometrial Ablation System. Those devices are no longer available in the United States.

Peer Reviewed Publications:

1. Alvarez López C, González Paredes A, Martínez Morales S, et al. Retrospective study on the outcomes and satisfaction with endometrial ablation by bipolar energy (NovaSure®) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025; 311:385-393.
2. Brown J, Blank K. Minimally invasive endometrial ablation device complications and use outside of the manufacturers' instructions. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120(4):865-870.
3. Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022; 14:1083-1092.
4. Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021; 28(4):899-908.
5. Dood RL, Gracia CR, Sammel MD, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation vs medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21(5):744-752.
6. Enzelsberger S, Reinthaller A, Grimm C. Thermal balloon endometrial ablation in women with and without previous cesarean section: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 309(3):967-972.
7. Ferrigni E, El-Nashar S, Famuyide A, et al. Endometrial ablation with or without intrauterine device insertion for abnormal uterine bleeding: a comparison of outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. Published online March 21, 2026.
8. Grimstad FW, Boskey ER, Clark RS, Ferrando CA. Management of breakthrough bleeding in transgender and gender diverse individuals on testosterone. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024; 231(5):534.e1-534.e11.
9. Huijs E, Bongers MY, Van Vliet HA, et al. Endometrial ablation versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term results of the MIRA randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024; 230(3):352.e1-352.e11.
10. Kalampokas E, McRobbie S, Payne F, Parkin DE. Long-term incidence of hysterectomy following endometrial resection or endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017; 139(1):61-64.
11. Laberge P, Garza-Leal J, Fortin C, et al. A randomized controlled multicenter US Food and Drug Administration trial of the safety and efficacy of the Minerva endometrial ablation system: one-year follow-up results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(1):124-132.
12. Laberge P, Garza-Leal J, Fortin C, et al. One-year follow-up results of a multicenter, single-arm, objective performance criteria-controlled international clinical study of the safety and efficacy of the Minerva endometrial ablation system. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(7):1169-1177.
13. Levie MD, Chudnoff SG. A prospective, multicenter, pivotal trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the AEGEA vapor endometrial ablation system. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26(4):679-687.
14. McGee D, Fields K, Kisuule I, et al. Fifteen-year risk of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2024; 143(3):184-192.
15. Meijer K, Wouters D, Koopman K, et al. Comprehensive analysis of NovaSure® endometrial ablation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding: identifying success rate and predictive factors for post-NovaSure® hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025; 310:113941.
16. Philip CA, Le Mitouard M, Maillet L, et al. Evaluation of NovaSure^® global endometrial ablation in symptomatic adenomyosis: a longitudinal study with a 36 month follow-up. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 227:46-51.
17. Soini T, Rantanen M, Paavonen J, et al. Long-term follow-up after endometrial ablation in Finland: cancer risks and later hysterectomies. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130(3):554-560.
18. Strobel L, Gleirscher N, Hofbauer F, et al. Long-term outcomes after endometrial ablation: a case series at the Medical University Innsbruck. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2026; 322:115127.
19. van Vugt WLJ, van den Boogaard E, van der Tuuk K, et al. Gynecologic function and dysfunction in transmasculine and gender-diverse individuals using testosterone therapy: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026; 235(1):33-71.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists committee opinion no. 557: management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 (Reaffirmed 2019); 121(4):891-896.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Clinical Consensus-Gynecology. General approaches to medical management of menstrual suppression: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Consensus No. 3. Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 140(3):528-542.
3. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for abnormal uterine bleeding. New 2020. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69458/Narrative/. Accessed on August 14, 2026.
4. Bofill RM, Lethaby A, Grigore M, et al. Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;(1):CD001501.
5. Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;
6. Fergusson RJ, Bofill RM, Lethaby A, Farquhar C. Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; (8):CD000329.
7.  102(11):3869-3903.
8. Leyland N, Wolfman W, Allaire C, et al.; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Clinical Practice-Gynaecology Committee. Guideline No. 453: endometrial ablation in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2024; 46(9).
9. Rodriguez MI, Padrón SL, Martin-Serrano M, et al. Endometrial resection/ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 11(11):CD000329.
10. Rodriguez MI, Padrón SL, Martin-Serrano M, et al. Second-line treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 12(12):CD013843.
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification Database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. AEGEA Vapor System (AEGEA Medical, Inc. Redwood City, CA). P160047. Rockville, MD: FDA. June 14, 2017. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm?db=pma&id=394194.  Accessed on August 14, 2026.
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification Database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. Cerene® Cryotherapy Device (Channel Medsystems, Inc. Emeryville, CA). P180032. Rockville, MD: FDA. March 28, 2019. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/P180032a.pdf.  Accessed on August 14, 2026.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification Database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. Her Option Uterine Cryoablation Therapy™ System (Cooper Surgical, Inc. Trumbull, CT). P000032. Rockville, MD: FDA. April 20, 2001. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm?db=pma&id=319995. Accessed on August 14, 2026.
14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification Database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. Minerva Endometrial Ablation System (Minerva Surgical, Redwood City, CA). P140013. Rockville, MD: FDA. July 27, 2015. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm?db=pma&id=320585. Accessed on August 14, 2026.
15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification Database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. NovaSure Impedance Controlled Endometrial Ablation System (Hologic, Inc. Marlborough, MA). P010013. Rockville, MD: FDA. Sept. 28, 2001. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm?db=pma&id=320033.Accessed on August 14, 2026.
16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification Database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. Cerene Cryoablation Device (Channel Medsystems, Inc. Emeryville, CA). P180032. Rockville, MD: FDA. March 28, 2019. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/P180032B.pdf. Accessed on August 14, 2026.
17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Premarket Approval (PMA) database. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. Minitouch 3.8 Era System (Minitouch System [MicroCube, LLC, Fremont, CA]). P230002. Rockville, MD: FDA. July 28, 2023. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf23/P230002B.pdf. Accessed on August 14, 2026.
18. Wheeler TL 2nd, Murphy M, Rogers RG, et al.; Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group. Clinical practice guideline for abnormal uterine bleeding: hysterectomy versus alternative therapy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19(1):81-88.

AEGEA Vapor System
Cerene Cryotherapy Device
Endometrial Ablation
Genesys HTA^™ System
Her Option Uterine Cryoablation Therapy System
Hydro ThermAblator System
Intrauterine Ablation
Laser Ablation of the Endometrium
Mara Water Vapor Ablation System
Minerva Endometrial Ablation System
Minitouch System
NovaSure Impedance Controlled Endometrial Ablation System
Rollerball Ablation of the Endometrium

The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available. 

Federal and State law, as well as contract language, and Medical Policy take precedence over Clinical UM Guidelines. We reserve the right to review and update Clinical UM Guidelines periodically. Clinical guidelines approved by the Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee are available for general adoption by plans or lines of business for consistent review of the medical necessity of services related to the clinical guideline when the plan performs utilization review for the subject. Due to variances in utilization patterns, each plan may choose whether to adopt a particular Clinical UM Guideline. To determine if review is required for this Clinical UM Guideline, please contact the customer service number on the member's card.

Alternatively, commercial or FEP plans or lines of business which determine there is not a need to adopt the guideline to review services generally across all providers delivering services to Plan’s or line of business’s members may instead use the clinical guideline for provider education and/or to review the medical necessity of services for any provider who has been notified that his/her/its claims will be reviewed for medical necessity due to billing practices or claims that are not consistent with other providers, in terms of frequency or in some other manner.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.

© CPT Only - American Medical Association