Intraoperative transvaginal ultrasound to refine surgical strategy in rectosigmoid endometriosis.

STUDY QUESTIONWhat are the risk factors and prevalence of bowel fistula following surgical management of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectosigmoid and how can it be managed?SUMMARY ANSWERIn patients managed for deep endometriosis of the rectosigmoid, risk of fistula is increased by bowel opening during both segmental colorectal resection and disc excision and rectovaginal fistula repair is more challenging than for bowel leakage.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYBowel fistula is known to be a severe complication of colorectal endometriosis surgery; however, there is little available data on its prevalence in large series or on specific management.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONA retrospective study employing data prospectively recorded in the North-West Inter Regional Female Cohort for Patients with Endometriosis (CIRENDO) from June 2009 to May 2019, in three tertiary referral centres.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSOne thousand one hundred and two patients presenting with deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectosigmoid, who were managed by shaving, disc excision or colorectal resection. The prevalence of bowel fistula was assessed, and factors related to the complication and its surgical management.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEOf 1102 patients enrolled in the study, 52.5% had a past history of gynaecological surgery and 52.7% had unsuccessfully attempted to conceive for over 12 months. Digestive tract subocclusion/occlusion was recorded in 12.7%, hydronephrosis in 4.5% and baseline severe bladder dysfunction in 1.5%. An exclusive laparoscopic approach was carried out in 96.8% of patients. Rectal shaving was performed in 31.9%, disc excision in 23.1%, colorectal resection in 35.8% and combined disc excision and sigmoid colon resection in 2.9%. For various reasons, the nodule was not completely removed in 6.4%, while in 7.2% of cases complementary procedures on the ileum, caecum and right colon were required. Parametrium excision was performed in 7.8%, dissection and excision of sacral roots in 4%, and surgery for ureteral endometriosis in 11.9%. Diverting stoma was performed in 21.8%. Thirty-seven patients presented with bowel fistulae (3.4%) of whom 23 (62.2%) were found to have rectovaginal fistulae and 14 (37.8%) leakage. Logistic regression model showed rectal lumen opening to increase risk of fistula when compared with shaving, regardless of nodule size: adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) for disc excision, colorectal resection and association of disc excision + segmental resection was 6.8 (1.9–23.8), 4.8 (1.4–16.9) and 11 (2.1–58.6), respectively. Repair of 23 rectovaginal fistulae required 1, 2, 3 or 4 additional surgical procedures in 12 (52.2%), 8 (34.8%), 2 (8.7%) and 1 patient (4.3%), respectively. Repair of leakage in 14 patients required 1 procedure (stoma) in 12 cases (85.7%) and a second procedure (colorectal resection) in 2 cases (14.3%). All patients, excepted five women managed by delayed coloanal anastomosis, underwent a supplementary surgical procedure for stoma repair. The period of time required for diverting stoma following repair of rectovaginal fistulae was significantly longer than for repair of leakages (median values 10 and 5 months, respectively, P = 0.008)LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONThe main limits relate to the heterogeneity of techniques used in removal of rectosigmoid nodules and repairing fistulae, the lack of accurate information about the level of nodules, the small number of centres and that a majority of patients were managed by one surgeon.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSDeep endometriosis infiltrating the rectosigmoid can be managed laparoscopically with a relatively low risk of bowel fistula. When the type of bowel procedure can be chosen, performance of shaving instead of disc excision or colorectal resection is suggested considering the lower risk of bowel fistula. Rectovaginal fistula repair is more challenging than for bowel leakage and may require up to four additional surgical procedures.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)CIRENDO is financed by the G4 Group (The University Hospitals of Rouen, Lille, Amiens and Caen) and the ROUENDOMETRIOSE Association. No financial support was received for this study. H.R. reports personal fees from ETHICON, Plasma Surgical, Olympus and Nordic Pharma outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interests related to this topic.

Surgical Outcomes after Colorectal Surgery for Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

What is the additional value of the comprehensive complication index (CCI) and ClassIntra system (classification for intraoperative adverse events (ioAEs)) in adverse event (AE) reporting in (deep) endometriosis (DE) surgery compared to only using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system? The CCI and ClassIntra are useful additional tools alongside the CD system for a complete and uniform overview of the total AE burden in patients with extensive surgery (such as DE), and with this uniform data registration, it is possible to provide greater insight into the quality of care. Uniform comparison of AEs reported in the literature is hampered by scattered registration. In endometriosis surgery, the usage of the CD complication system and the CCI is internationally recommended; however, the CCI is not routinely adapted in endometriosis care and research. Furthermore, a recommendation for ioAEs registration in endometriosis surgery is lacking, although this is vital information in surgical quality assessments. A prospective mono-center study was conducted with 870 surgical DE cases from a non-university DE expertise center between February 2019 and December 2021. Endometriosis cases were collected with the EQUSUM system, a publicly available web-based application for registration of surgical procedures for endometriosis. Postoperative adverse events (poAEs) were classified with the CD complication system and CCI. Differences in reporting and classifying AEs between the CCI and the CD were assessed. ioAEs were assessed with the ClassIntra. The primary outcome measure was to assess the additional value toward the CD classification with the introduction of the CCI and ClassIntra. In addition, we report a benchmark for the CCI in DE surgery. A total of 870 DE procedures were registered, of which 145 procedures with one or more poAEs, resulting in a poAE rate of 16.7% (145/870), of which in 36 cases (4.1%), the poAE was classified as severe (≥Grade 3b). The median CCI (interquartile range) of patients with poAEs was 20.9 (20.9-31.7) and 33.7 (33.7-39.7) in the group of patients with severe poAEs. In 20 patients (13.8%), the CCI was higher than the CD because of multiple poAEs. There were 11 ioAEs reported (11/870, 1.3%) in all procedures, mostly minor and directly repaired serosa injuries. This study was conducted at a single center; thus, trends in AE rates and type of AEs could differ from other centers. Furthermore, no conclusion could be drawn on ioAEs in relation to the postoperative course because the power of this database is not robust enough for that purpose. From our data, we would advise to use the Clavien-Dindo classification system together with the CCI and ClassIntra for a complete overview of AE registration. The CCI appeared to provide a more complete overview of the total burden of poAEs compared to only reporting the most severe poAEs (as with CD). If the use of the CD, CCI, and ClassIntra is widely adapted, uniform data comparison will be possible at (inter)national level, providing better insight into the quality of care. Our data could be used as a first benchmark for other DE centers to optimize information provision in the shared decision-making process. No funding was received for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. N/A.

Disk Excision Using End-to-End Anastomosis Circular Stapler for Deep Endometriosis of the Rectum: A 492-Patient Continuous Prospective Series

The debate around colorectal surgery for endometriosis has been ongoing, but to date no meta-analysis has investigated the impact of the different surgical approaches on the pregnancy rate. The aim of this meta-analysis study was to determine in women with deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis, how does colorectal resection surgery compare to other surgical techniques (e.g., rectal shaving, disc excision) in terms of pregnancy rates. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Clinical Trials for relevant studies published from inception to December 2024. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all English language full-text articles addressing colorectal resection compared with other management of deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis and presenting pregnancy outcomes. We included a study when it (i) provided data on surgical management (shaving, disc excision, and/or colorectal resection) and (ii) detailed the pregnancy outcomes in each subgroup. Four authors independently performed the initial search to evaluate the eligibility criteria. Four authors extracted the data and a fifth author checked this extraction. Of the 113 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we included 13 in the meta-analysis. These studies represented a total of 3,248 patients. Pregnancy information was available for 2,131 patients: 1073 colorectal resection, 502 shaving, 172 disc excisions, and 384 other practices (expectant management). Colorectal resection was associated with a lower pregnancy rate compared with the other techniques (N = 2,131, odds ratio [OR] = 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.52–0.79], p < 0.001, I2 = 35%). There were similar results when comparing colorectal resection with rectal shaving (N = 952, OR = 0.51 [95% confidence interval 0.36–0.73], p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), but not when comparing colorectal resection with disc excision (N = 432, OR = 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.37–1.13], p = 0.13). Conclusions Rectal resection for endometriosis is associated with a lower pregnancy rate compared with other type of surgery, such as shaving. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42024512328.

Choosing the right surgical technique for deep endometriosis: shaving, disc excision, or bowel resection?

Bowel or intestinal endometriosis is estimated to affect 5–37% of women with deep infiltrative endometriosis (DIE), especially in the rectum and recto-sigmoid junction. However, there are no current guidelines or consensus regarding safest mode of delivery in pregnant women after different surgical interventions for bowel/intestinal endometriosis. From October 2019 to February 2020, we conducted an online survey of members of the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE). These included questions on what gynaecologist members would recommend as modes of delivery in women who had different surgical modalities for bowel endometriosis, and the particular factors that influence such recommendations. Analysis of data was performed using SPSS for Windows (V9) software package. One hundred and two members of BSGE completed the survey (61.76% of BSGE gynaecologist members). Only 30.39% of respondents counsel women, pre-operatively, about possible effects of surgical treatment of bowel endometriosis on their subsequent mode of delivery. Our survey highlights wide variation in practice that currently exists. Around 70% of clinicians are not counselling patients regarding delivery options pre-surgery despite almost one-third recommending planned caesarean section if the vagina is opened. Further studies are required to stratify the risk factors for such patients when attempting vaginal delivery or caesarean section. IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Treatment of colorectal endometriosis consists of rectal shaving, discoid resection or segmental colorectal resection. However, the relationship between different surgical modalities for bowel endometriosis and the subsequent safe mode of labour and delivery remains unclear. What do the results of this study add? No study has been published that specifically looked at the particular course and outcome of labour and delivery after each of these bowel surgeries; rectal shaving, disc excision, or segmental colorectal resection. Our study highlights the wide variations in practice that currently exists. Despite around 70% of clinicians not counselling women regarding delivery options pre-surgery, almost one-third would recommend a planned caesarean section if the vagina is opened. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study suggests that risk factors should be stratified for such patients when attempting a vaginal delivery or undergoing a caesarean section. Guidance from the ESGE and/or BSGE would be useful to aid in the counselling and informed consent of such patients.

STUDY QUESTIONIs there a difference in functional outcome between conservative versus radical rectal surgery in patients with large deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum 2 years postoperatively?SUMMARY ANSWERNo evidence was found that functional outcomes differed when conservative surgery was compared to radical rectal surgery for deeply invasive endometriosis involving the bowel.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYAdopting a conservative approach to the surgical management of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum, by employing shaving or disc excision, appears to yield improved digestive functional outcomes. However, previous comparative studies were not randomized, introducing a possible bias regarding the presumed superiority of conservative techniques due to the inclusion of patients with more severe deep endometriosis who underwent colorectal resection.STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATIONFrom March 2011 to August 2013, we performed a 2-arm randomized trial, enroling 60 patients with deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum up to 15 cm from the anus, measuring more than 20 mm in length, involving at least the muscular layer in depth and up to 50% of rectal circumference. No women were lost to follow-up.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSPatients were enroled in three French university hospitals and had either conservative surgery, by shaving or disc excision, or radical rectal surgery, by segmental resection. Randomization was performed preoperatively using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes, and patients were informed of the results of randomization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing one of the following symptoms: constipation (1 stool/>5 consecutive days), frequent bowel movements (≥3 stools/day), defecation pain, anal incontinence, dysuria or bladder atony requiring self-catheterization 24 months postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were the values of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Knowles–Eccersley–Scott-Symptom Questionnaire (KESS), the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), the Wexner scale, the Urinary Symptom Profile (USP) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF36).MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEA total of 60 patients were enroled. Among the 27 patients in the conservative surgery arm, two were converted to segmental resection (7.4%). In each group, 13 presented with at least one functional problem at 24 months after surgery (48.1 versus 39.4%, OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.22–2.21). The intention-to-treat comparison of the overall scores on KESS, GIQLI, Wexner, USP and SF36 did not reveal significant differences between the two arms. Segmental resection was associated with a significant risk of bowel stenosis.LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTIONThe inclusion of only large infiltrations of the rectum does not allow the extrapolation of conclusions to small nodules of <20 mm in length. The presumption of a 40% difference favourable to conservative surgery in terms of postoperative functional outcomes resulted in a lack of power to demonstrate a difference for the primary endpoint.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSConservative surgery is feasible in patients managed for large deep rectal endometriosis. The trial does not show a statistically significant superiority of conservative surgery for mid-term functional digestive and urinary outcomes in this specific population of women with large involvement of the rectum. There is a higher risk of rectal stenosis after segmental resection, requiring additional endoscopic or surgical procedures.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)This work was supported by a grant from the clinical research programme for hospitals (PHRC) in France. The authors declare no competing interests related to this study.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 01291576.TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE31 January 2011.DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT7 March 2011.

Long-term Outcomes Following Surgical Management of Rectal Endometriosis: Seven-year Follow-up of Patients Enrolled in a Randomized Trial

Preface

How should surgery for endometriosis be performed? This document provides recommendations covering technical aspects of different methods of surgery for deep endometriosis in women of reproductive age. Endometriosis is highly prevalent and often associated with severe symptoms. Yet compared to equally prevalent conditions it is poorly understood and a challenge to manage. Previously published guidelines have provided recommendations for (surgical) treatment of deep endometriosis, based on the best available evidence, but without technical information and details on how to best perform such treatment in order to be effective and safe. A working group of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the World Endometriosis Society (WES) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of surgery for treatment of deep endometriosis. This document focused on surgery for deep endometriosis, and is complementary to a previous document in this series focusing on endometrioma surgery. The document presents general recommendations for surgery for deep endometriosis, starting from preoperative assessments and first steps of surgery. Different approaches for surgical treatment are discussed and are respective of location and extent of disease; uterosacral ligaments and rectovaginal septum with or without involvement of the rectum, urinary tract or extrapelvic endometriosis. In addition, recommendations are provided on the treatment of frozen pelvis and on hysterectomy as a treatment for deep endometriosis. Owing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical expertise. Where available, references of relevant studies were added. These recommendations complement previous guidelines on management of endometriosis and the recommendations for surgical treatment of ovarian endometrioma. The meetings of the working group were funded by ESGE, ESHRE and WES.Dr. Roman reports personal fees from ETHICON, PLASMASURGICAL, OLYMPUS, and NORDIC PHARMA, outside the submitted work; Dr. Becker reports grants from Bayer AG, Volition Rx, MDNA Life Sciences, and Roche Diagnostics Inc, and other relationships or activities from AbbVie Inc, and Myriad Inc, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Tomassetti reports non-financial support from ESHRE, during the conduct of the study; non-financial support and other from Lumenis, Gedeon-Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck SA, outside the submitted work. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

Multiple nodule removal in multifocal colorectal endometriosis instead of “en bloc” large colorectal resection

What is the sensitivity and the specificity of preoperative transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation (TVUS-BP) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) for the identification of ovarian and deep sites of endometriosis? DL was able to detect retrocervical, ovarian, and bladder endometriosis with similar sensitivity and specificity as TVUS-BP, whereas for vaginal and rectosigmoid endometriosis, DL had lower sensitivity and specificity than TVUS-BP. TVUS-BP is a non-invasive examination with good accuracy for diagnosing ovarian and deep endometriosis. DL is expensive and can lead to surgical complications. This prospective study included a total of 120 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for suspected endometriosis with preoperative imaging (TVUS-BP), including a video of the laparoscopic procedure, between March 2017 and September 2019. Two radiologists performed preoperative TVUS-BP using the same protocol for diagnosing endometriosis. Two surgeons, who were blinded to the results of the preoperative imaging and clinical data, reviewed the surgical videos from the entry of the abdominal cavity until the surgeon finalized a complete and systematic review prior to beginning any dissection (considered as a DL). A data sheet was used by surgeons and radiologists to record the sites and size of disease involvement, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) stage, and the Enzian score. The surgical visualization of endometriosis lesions that were confirmed by histological analysis was the gold standard. DL was able to detect retrocervical, ovarian, and bladder endometriosis with similar sensitivity and specificity as TVUS-BP. DL was not able to detect vaginal endometriosis (sensitivity and specificity 0%): this is compared to a sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% and 99.1%, respectively with the utilization of a preoperative TVUS-BP. In addition, DL was notably poor at detecting rectosigmoid endometriosis, with a sensitivity of 3.7-5.6%, and this compares to 96.3% sensitivity with utilization of a preoperative TVUS (P < 0.001). For the ASRM stage, TVUS-BP results were highly correlated with the degree of endometriosis and pouch of Douglas (POD) obliteration (weighted Kappa of 0.867 and 0.985, respectively). For the Enzian score, there was a substantial correlation between TVUSP-BP and DL for compartment A (weighted Kappa = 0.827), compartment B (weighted Kappa = 0.670), and compartment C (weighted kappa = 0.814). The number of participants included may be a limitation in this study and, as the evaluators were blinded to the physical exam, the DL accuracy could be underestimated. As biopsies of pelvic organs were obtained only if there was a suspicion of endometriosis, the gold standard was not always applicable. This aspect could underestimate the prevalence of lesions and overestimate the sensitivity and the specificity of both the TVUS-BP and the DL. Preoperative TVUS-BP was accurate in identifying all sites of ovarian and deep endometriosis that were evaluated. It had significantly higher sensitivity than DL in detecting rectosigmoid endometriosis and predicting intraoperative ASRM staging and the Enzian score. These results suggest that TVUS-BP can replace DL for the diagnosis and treatment planning for patients with ovarian and deep endometriosis. The authors declare no source of funding or conflicts of interest. N/A.

International survey finds majority of gynecologists are not aware of and do not utilize ultrasound techniques to diagnose and map endometriosis.

Excision of Deep Rectovaginal Endometriosis Nodules with Large Infiltration of Both Rectum and Vagina: What Is a Reasonable Rate of Preventive Stoma? A Comparative Study