Skip Navigation


Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on January 9, 2009
Human Reproduction Update 2009 15(2):177-188; doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn062
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
15/2/177    most recent
dmn062v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vercellini, P.
Right arrow Articles by Fedele, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vercellini, P.
Right arrow Articles by Fedele, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The effect of surgery for symptomatic endometriosis: the other side of the story

P. Vercellini1,2,3,4, P.G. Crosignani1, A. Abbiati1,2,3, E. Somigliana2,3, P. Viganò2 and L. Fedele1,3

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy 2 Center for Research in Obstetrics and Gynecology (C.R.O.G.), 20122 Milan, Italy 3 Fondazione Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Mangiagalli e Regina Elena, Istituto "Luigi Mangiagalli" 20122, Milan, Italy

4 Correspondence address. Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica I, Istituto "Luigi Mangiagalli", University of Milan, Via Commenda 12, 20122 Milan, Italy. Tel: +39-02-5503-2917; Fax: +39-02-5503-2331; E-mail: paolo.vercellini{at}unimi.it

BACKGROUND: Surgery is often considered the best treatment option in women with symptomatic endometriosis. However, extent and duration of the therapeutic benefit are still poorly defined.

METHODS: The best available evidence on surgery for endometriosis-associated pain has been reviewed to estimate the effect size of interventions in the most frequently encountered clinical conditions.

RESULTS: Methodological drawbacks limit considerably the validity of observational, non-comparative studies on the effect of laparoscopy for stage I–IV disease. As indicated by the results of three RCTs, the absolute benefit increase of destruction of lesions compared with diagnostic only operation in terms of proportion of women reporting pain relief was between 30% and 40% after short follow-up periods. The effect size tended to decrease with time and the re-operation rate, based on long-term follow-up studies, was as high as 50%. In most case series on excisional surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis, substantial short-term pain relief was experienced by ~70–80% of the subjects who continued the study. However, at 1 year follow-up, ~50% of the women needed analgesics or hormonal treatments. Major complications were observed in 3–10% of the patients. Medium-term recurrence of lesions was observed in ~20% of the cases, and around 25% of the women underwent repetitive surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: Pain recurrence and re-operation rates after conservative surgery for symptomatic endometriosis are high and probably underestimated. Clinicians and patients should be aware that the expected benefit is operator-dependent.

Key words: endometriosis / chronic pelvic pain / surgery / laparoscopy

Received on October 23, 2008; revised December 2, 2008; accepted on December 10, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
P. Vercellini, P. G. Crosignani, E. Somigliana, N. Berlanda, G. Barbara, and L. Fedele
Medical treatment for rectovaginal endometriosis: what is the evidence?
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 2504 - 2514.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.