Symptomatology and Surgical Perspective of Scar Endometriosis: A Case Series of 16 Women

Surgical and Percutaneous Image-guided Therapies of Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: a Systematic Review of Current Evidence

OBJECTIVE

Despite various surgical and non-surgical strategies for abdominal wall endometriosis, the lack of definitive guidance on optimal treatment choice leads to clinical uncertainty. This review scrutinizes the safety and efficacy of abdominal wall endometriosis treatments to aid in decision-making.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from 1947 until December 2023.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A comprehensive literature search identified studies that assessed both surgical and nonsurgical interventions, including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and microwave ablation (MWA). This review is registered in NIHR-PROSPERO (CRD 42023494969). Local tumor control (LTC), local pain relief (LPR) and adverse events (AE) were recorded.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

This review included 51 articles among 831 identified. All study designs were considered eligible for inclusion. A total of 2,674 patients are included: 2,219 patients (83%) undergoing surgery, and 455 (17%) undergoing percutaneous interventions (342 HIFU, 103 cryoablation, 1 RFA, 9 MWA). Follow-up length was 18 months in median, ranging from 1 to 235 months. Overall LTC rates ranged from 86% to 100%. Surgical interventions consistently demonstrated the highest rate of LTC with a median rate of 100%, and LPR with a median rate of 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.9-97.7). HIFU showed median LTC and LPR rates, respectively of 95.65% (95% CI, 87.7-99.9) and 76.1% (95% CI, 61.8-90.4); and cryoablation of 85.7% (95% CI, 66.0-99.9) and 79.2% (95% CI, 67.4-91.03). Minor AE were reported after surgery in 17.5% of patients (225/1284) including 15.9% (199/1284) of mesh implantation; 76.4% (239/313) after HIFU; and 8.7 % (9/103) after cryoablation. Severe AE were reported in 25 patients in the surgery group and 1 in the percutaneous group.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile and efficacy of nonsurgical interventions support their clinical utility for management of abdominal wall endometriosis.

Effectiveness and complication rates of high intensity focused ultrasound treatment for abdominal wall endometriosis: A systematic review

In this review, a systematic literature search on the effectiveness and complication rates of ultrasound-guided and magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (USg-/MRgHIFU) for abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) was conducted in six databases in May/June 2023. Original articles of (non)randomized trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case series published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Of the included studies the level of evidence (LoE) and methodological quality using the ROBINS-I and IHE-QAT was assessed. Primary outcomes were non-perfused volume ratio (NPV%), lesion size, pain scores, side effects and complication rates according to Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines. Secondary outcomes were recurrence and re-intervention rates. Seven cohort studies (one of good methodological quality) (LoE 3) on USgHIFU were included (n = 212, AWE lesions = 240-245). Six months after USgHIFU treatment, pain scores were reduced with 3.3-5.2 points (baseline: 5.1-6.8, n = 135). Self-limiting side effects were pain (85.7 % (114/133)) and swelling (34.6 % (46/133)) in the treatment area. Complications occurred in 17.7 % (32/181), all of which were minor. Recurrence occurred in 12.8 % (11/86). Three of these seven cohort studies compared USgHIFU (n = 61) with surgical excision (n = 74). Pooled results showed no significant differences in pain scores, complications (resp. 26.3 % (10/38) vs. 32.6 % (15/46) (p = 0.53)) and recurrences (resp. 4.9 % (3/61) vs. 5.4 % (4/74) (p = 0.90)). This systematic review suggests that HIFU is an effective and safe treatment option for AWE. USgHIFU treatment led to reduced pain scores and lesion size, was free of major complications and had a pooled recurrence rate of 12.8 %. Compared to surgical excision pooled results showed no significant differences in pain scores, complications and recurrences after USgHIFU. However, many of the included studies had limitations in their methodological quality and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Well-structured high-quality randomized controlled trials comparing HIFU to standard care should be conducted to provide more conclusive evidence.

Primary versus secondary cutaneous endometriosis: Literature review and case study

Cutaneous endometriosis, characterized by the presence of endometrium or endometrial-like tissue outside of the uterine cavity, is an uncommon and chronic disease. Depending on a patient's history, cutaneous endometriosis is classified as either primary cutaneous endometriosis (PCE) or secondary cutaneous endometriosis (SCE). We report a case of SCE presenting with the classic triad of previous caesarean section, subcutaneous nodules at the site of the scar, and pain associated with menstruation. Considering histopathology as the standard, we confirmed a diagnosis of cutaneous endometriosis by ultrasound and histopathology. Furthermore, we compared and analyzed the clinical characteristics of PCE and SCE, the study included 20 and 14 patients with cutaneous endometriosis diagnosed with PCE and SCE respectively. In the PCE group, the mean age of patients at the onset was 33.7 years, while it was 40.6 years in the SCE group. The mean disease-duration time of PCE was shorter than that of SCE (1.3 vs. 2.8 years, P > 0.05). The most common clinical presentation of PCE and SCE was a nodule (90% vs. 86%). The PCE was mainly bleeding with pain (45%), whereas the SCE of only pain and bleeding with pain accounted for the same proportion (45%). The most common sites of PCE and SCE were in the umbilical region (90% vs. 57%, P < 0.05). In our study, some statistically significant difference was found between different types of CE and it may contribute to improve clinicians' understanding of the disease, and perform early diagnosis and treatment.

Caesarean-section scar endometriosis (CSSE): clinical and imaging fundamentals of an underestimated entity

Caesarean-section scar endometriosis (CSSE) is a form of extra-pelvic endometriosis developing through endometrial cell implantation anywhere along the route of a previous caesarean section (CS) surgery, including the skin, subcutaneous tissue, abdominal wall muscles, intraperitoneally, and the uterine scar itself. Synchronous intra-abdominal endometriosis is not a prerequisite. Given the rising prevalence of CS, CSSE may be underrepresented in the literature and occur more frequently than previously thought. Locating a painful soft-tissue mass-like lesion along the path of a previous CS scar is the most indicative sign that should initially alarm physicians towards suggesting CSSE, especially if symptoms are typical (cyclically reoccurring with menstruation). The detection of hyperintense (haemorrhagic) foci on T1 fat-saturated sequences will strongly support the diagnosis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the most sensitive imaging method for CSSE assessment. A non-specific, contrast-enhancing, hypodense nodule with spiculate edges may be suggestive if the lesion was originally detected on computed tomography (CT). Although ultrasound is frequently the first imaging method used, the findings are non-specific; therefore, making it more useful for ruling out other differentials and for image-guided biopsy. In any case, histopathology provides the definitive diagnosis. Surgical excision is the mainstay of treatment; however, minimally invasive, percutaneous techniques have also been implemented successfully.

Surgical Scar Endometriosis: An Emerging Enigma

Introduction Surgical scar endometriosis is a subtype of extra-pelvic endometriosis that is characterized by the formation of endometrial tissue near the incision site in patients who have previously undergone surgery. In recent times, with the increasing trend in Caesarean sections, the incidence of surgical scar endometriosis has also emerged. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and management of surgical scar endometriosis. Methodology We conducted this cross-sectional, observational study over eight years (2015-2022) in a tertiary care centre in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu, India. We conducted this study after acquiring an ethical certificate from the institutional ethics committee (IEC No. VMCIEC/22/2018). In this study, we sampled all women (n = 32) with a pathological diagnosis of scar endometriosis during the study period from hospital records (universal sampling). We searched the data for both general characteristics and lesion characteristics of the patients. The general characteristics include age, body mass index (BMI), parity, mode of delivery, symptoms, and imaging by ultrasound. We have recorded the lesion characteristics of the patient, including location and size of scar endometriosis, layers involved in scar endometriosis, and surgical technique from surgical notes written in the case sheet. The minimum sample size required for this study was 31 study subjects. We entered the data into Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and analyzed it in SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). We expressed the quantitative variables in terms of mean and standard deviation and the qualitative variables in terms of frequency and percentage. Results The mean age of the study participants was 34 years (range 23-55 years). In our study, 29 patients (90.6%) were multi-para, and only three (9.4%) were nullipara. Among 29 parous women, the majority (25, or 77.7%) had delivered by Caesarean section, while only four (12.5%) delivered by normal vaginal delivery. The surgical procedures preceding the scar endometriosis were predominantly obstetric procedures (87.4%), out of which 25 patients underwent a Caesarean section and only three underwent an episiotomy. The most common presenting symptom of scar endometriosis in our study was cyclical pain in the scar site (90.4%), followed by swelling (81.25%). In 62.5% of patients, the duration between the presentation of surgical scar endometriosis and surgical intervention was greater than one year. Subcutaneous tissue (90.6%) was the most commonly involved layer in surgical scar endometriosis, followed by the rectus sheath (86.2%). The surgical procedure done for scar endometriosis was wide local excision in 78% of patients, and the remaining 22% of patients had wide local excision with mesh repair. Conclusion Cesarean section is an obvious risk factor for surgical scar endometriosis. Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for surgical scar endometriosis in women presenting with cyclic pain at the scar site. Ultrasound is accurate in diagnosing scar endometriosis. Surgical management by wide local excision with a clear margin with or without mesh repair is the treatment of choice.

The clinical features and long-term surgical outcomes of different types of abdominal wall endometriosis

PURPOSE

To classify abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) according to the invasive levels of tissue mass, and to compare the differences in clinical characteristics between different types of AWE.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 367 patients who had undergone resection of abdominal-wall endometriotic lesions at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2008 to December 2018, and we divided the patients into three types according to their deepest level of lesion invasion. Type I designated invasion of skin and subcutaneous tissue; type II, of fascia and rectus abdominis; and type III, of peritoneum. We classified, compared, and analyzed the general conditions, clinical manifestations, auxiliary examinations, surgical conditions, postoperative conditions, and recurrence status of patients.

RESULTS

Of the 367 patients, type I patients accounted for 13.62%, type II patients for 56.68%, and type III for 29.7%. With respect to group comparisons, we observed that as the location of the mass deepened, the rate of concurrent pelvic endometriosis increased (P = 0.007), recurrent AWE was augmented (P = 0.02), the size of the mass increased (P < 0.001), the rate of multiple lesions became elevated (P < 0.001), the rate of mesh implantation increased (P < 0.001), the length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) was lengthened, the number of postoperative fever cases (P = 0.006) increased, and the risk of drainage placement (P < 0.001) was enhanced. The 5-year cumulative recurrence rate was 3.3%, and there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate among various types of AWE.

CONCLUSION

Type III AWE carries more severe clinical manifestations, larger lesion size, longer operative time, greater intraoperative surgical difficulty, higher necessity of mesh implantation, and longer postoperative recovery process. Complete resection of AWE lesion is the main therapeutically approach and shows relatively low long-term recurrency rate.

Resection and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction for Cesarean Scar Endometriosis

Introduction

Currently, there are few reports describing the use of reconstructive techniques in the treatment of cesarean scar endometriosis (CSE). Here, we report a case of CSE, a rare form of endometriosis caused by scars from obstetric and gynecological surgeries. Case Report. A 50-year-old woman became aware of a painful, deep scar mass in her lower abdomen during her menstrual period 10 years after her second cesarean section. This was diagnosed as CSE after the biopsy. Under general anesthesia, the mass, a portion of the rectus abdominis, and a 1 cm tumor-free margin were resected as a whole, and the abdominal wall was reconstructed with a soft artificial mesh.

Results

No obvious recurrence or subjective symptoms were observed postoperatively or reported in the 1-year follow-up period. Discussion. Endometriosis appearing in a cesarean scar is rare; it is chiefly triggered by intraoperative mechanical implantation. In cases of surgical scar masses with a history of gynecological surgery and associated menstrual symptoms, this syndrome should be considered during diagnosis and treatment.

Abdominal wall endometriosis: A challenging iatrogenic disease

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Abdominal wall endometriosis is a rare clinical condition associated with abdominal pain and psychologic disorders. It's pathophysiology remains unclear. Clinical history and imaging findings are necessary for the diagnosis. Its management is challenging, and requires close collaboration between gynaecologists and visceral surgeons specially in complex procedures. The aims of our study are to present risk factors, clinical presentation, imaging findings and management features. It was a retrospective descriptive study including fifteen patients presenting abdominal wall endometriosis. Data about age, medical history, imaging findings, surgical procedures and outcome are reported.

CASES PRESENTATION

Fifteen women were included in our study. The most common symptom was cyclic abdominal pain. Twelve of them had history of caesarean section, and three had history of myomectomy. All patients underwent ultrasound and MRI. We performed surgical excision to all cases. One patient needed large excision with abdominoplasty procedure.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Abdominal wall endometriosis is a rare clinical condition with unclear pathophysiology. It occurs frequently after gynaecologic or obstetric surgery. Most reported complaint was catamenial abdominal pain with abdominal wall mass. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and MRI are useful for diagnosis, specially to eliminate differential diagnoses. Abdominal wall endometriosis management is based on surgery. Excision goals are to remove the mass and to confirm histological diagnosis of parietal endometriosis.

CONCLUSION

Parietal endometriosis is a rare and challenging condition with unclear pathophysiology. It requires specific management. This pathology will be encountered more frequently considering the increasing rate of caesarean section.

One of the rare reason of abdominal pain: abdominal wall endometriosis

Objectives

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of normal endometrial mucosa abnormally implanted in locations other than the uterine cavity. It is most commonly located in the pelvis but it is also rarely observed in the gastrointestinal tract, lung, liver, kidneys, central nervous system and abdominal wall. Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) commonly occurs following a caesarean section or pelvic surgery. The patients consult the physician mostly with complaints of cyclic abdominal pain and a palpable mass in the abdomen. The basic methods in diagnosing AWE are anamnesis and physical examination but ultrasound, computerized tomography, and sometimes magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen are also used.

Material and Methods

In our study, we retrospectively analyzed 9 patients who underwent surgery at Avcılar State Hospital General Surgery Service between January 2015 and December 2018 with a preliminary diagnosis of AWE and confirmation through pathology results.

Results

Median age of the patients was 32 ± 4.66 and median body mass index (BMI) was 24.6 ± 1.15. Every patient except 1 had a history of cesarean section history. One patient was operated because of recurrence. Patients consulted the hospital with complaints of pain during menstruation and abdominal swelling. The start of the complaints was 4.1 years following C-section. Mostly ultrasound was used for imaging. For treatment, they all received en-bloc mass excision and their pathological diagnosis were compliant with endometriosis. Average surgery time was 40 minutes and average endometriosis lesion dimension was 3.4 cm. It was observed that the lesion extended to the anterior abdominal fascia in 6 of the patients, and 2 patients underwent fascia repair with propylene mesh because of the excessive defect size. No postoperative complication occured in any patient and no recurrence is observed.

Conclusion

In patients with periodic abdominal pain and swelling on the abdominal wall, AWE could be suspected and early diagnosis can be realized by carefully taking medical history and following physical examination, and appropriate radiological examinations and necessary surgical intervention can be performed. The method of diagnosis and treatment is to remove the lesion through wide excision.

Abdominal wall endometriosis: experience of the General Surgery Service of the Antônio Pedro University Hospital of the Universidade Federal Fluminense

OBJECTIVE

to study the characteristics of women undergoing abdominal surgery with suspected abdominal wall endometriosis or abdominal wall tumor, and to assess the association with age, race and previous cesarean delivery.

METHOD

retrospective and analytical study carried out from January 2000 to December 2019, at the General Surgery Service of Hospital Universitário Antônio Pedro (HUAP) at Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF). Medical records of 100 patients with abdominal wall endometriosis and other types of abdominal wall tumors were analyzed. Age, color, previous history of cesarean section or abdominal surgery and histopathological data were verified. The patients were classified as young adults (aged between 18 and 28 years and 11 months) and adults. The SPSS program was used for data analysis, Fisher's test with a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

abdominal wall endometriosis with histopathological confirmation was found in 22%, the mean age was 52.28 ± 18.66 which was lower when compared to other diagnoses. There was an association between previous cesarean section and abdominal wall endometriosis (p <0.005).

CONCLUSION

the women with a diagnosis of abdominal wall endometriosis had undergone previous cesareans (the majority) and were in an active reproductive age. Although the brown skin women were the most frequent, there was no statistical difference.

Abdominal and perineal scar endometriosis: Retrospective study on 40 cases

OBJECTIVE(S)

Abdominal and perineal scar endometriosis usually develop in association with a prior surgical scar. The purpose of the study was to detect and review patients' characteristics of these women over a long period.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively review the clinical records of 860 women with endometriosis between 1989 and 2019. Data were collected and analyzed from medical and pathological reports of 40 patients with abdominal and perineal scar endometriosis.

RESULTS

26 patients (3,0 %) were detected in the abdominal wall endometriosis group (AWE) (mean age 36,5 ± 3,4 years) and 14(1,6 %) cases in the perineal endometriosis (PE) group (32,5 ± 2,4 years), respectively. We observed that 92,3 % of women with AWE had undergone at least 1 cesarean section. Moreover, the majority of patients presented with abdominal pain (77, 0 %) and sensation of a mass (96,2 %). 15,4 % of cases had concurrent pelvic endometriosis and the recurrent rate of the disease was 15,4 %. All cases with perineal scar endometriosis were multiparous and delivered vaginally with episiotomy. 92,8 % of patients presented with cyclical pain and swelling. 3 cases suffered from perineal endometriosis combined with pelvic endometriosis. There was a recurrence of perineal endometriosis in 2 women (14,2 %). Surgical excision was the standard treatment of this condition and tissue biopsy confirmed the diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall and perineal scar endometriosis are rare, multifactorial entities which are associated mainly with cesarean section and vaginal episiotomy. Clinicians should be aware of these conditions among all women of reproductive age presenting with cyclic or non-cyclic pain and swelling at the incision sites.

Abdominal wall endometriosis (a narrative review)

One of the rarest forms of endometriosis is abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE), which includes caesarean scar endometriosis. AWE remains a challenging condition because some issues related to this topic are still under debate. The increasing number of caesarean sections and laparotomies will expect to increase the rate of AWE. The current incidence in obstetrical and gynaecological procedures is still unknown. The disease is probably underestimated. The pathogenic mechanism involves local environment at the implant site including local inflammation and metalloproteinases activation due to local growth factors, estrogen stimulation through estrogen receptors and potential epigenetic changes. However, the underlying mechanisms are not fully explained, and we need more experimental models to understand them. The clinical presentation is heterogeneous; the patient may be seen by a gynaecologist, an endocrinologist, a general surgeon, an imaging specialist, or even an oncologist. No particular constellation of clinical risk factors has been identified, and the histological report is the major diagnostic tool for confirmation. Surgery is the first line of therapy. Further on we need protocols for multidisciplinary investigations and approaches.

Skin Endometriosis at the Caesarean Section Scar: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Cutaneous endometriosis is one of the rare gynecological conditions. Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside the endometrial cavity. It commonly occurs in pelvic sites, such as the ovaries, cul-de-sac, bowel, or pelvic peritoneum. Endometriosis at the incisional scar is difficult to diagnose because of nonspecific symptoms. Usually, patients complain of pain at the site of the incision during menstruation. The main causes in most of the reported cases are obstetrical and gynecological surgeries. Endometrial tissues may be directly implanted in the scar during operation and, under hormonal stimulation, proliferate and form scar endometriosis. Diagnosis is usually made following histopathology. A wide excision is recommended to prevent recurrence. We report a case of a 33-year-old woman presenting with a brownish mass on the lateral aspect of the Pfannenstiel incision from a previous cesarean section scar. The symptoms appeared two years after her operation. The patient had cyclical pain and brownish discharge from the lesion during menstruation. Excision of the skin lesion with underlying subcutaneous tissue showed multiple, minute, firm hemorrhagic foci. Histopathology was performed and revealed a benign endometrial gland and stroma in the tissues, confirming the diagnosis of scar endometriosis. Cutaneous endometriosis is an uncommon gynecological condition and difficult to diagnose because of the nonspecific symptoms. Usually, it is confused with other dermatological and surgical diseases and delays the diagnosis and management. Surgical scar endometriosis following obstetric and gynecological procedures is more frequent recently due to an increase in the number of caesarian sections worldwide. Health care providers should suspect cutaneous endometriosis in any women with pain and a lump in the incisional scar after pelvic surgery.