Bowel surgery as a fertility-enhancing procedure in patients with colorectal endometriosis: methodological, pathogenic and ethical issues

Towards comprehensive management of symptomatic endometriosis: beyond the dichotomy of medical versus surgical treatment

Except when surgery is the only option because of organ damage, the presence of suspicious lesions, or the desire to conceive, women with endometriosis-associated pain often face a choice between medical and surgical treatment. In theory, the description of the potential benefits and potential harms of the two alternatives should be standardized, unbiased, and based on strong evidence, enabling the patient to make an informed decision. However, doctor's opinion, intellectual competing interests, local availability of specific services and (mis)information obtained from social media, and online support groups can influence the type of advice given and affect patients' choices. This is compounded by the paucity of robust data from randomized controlled trials, and the anxiety of distressed women who are eager to do anything to alleviate their disabling symptoms. Vulnerable patients are more likely to accept the suggestions of their healthcare provider, which can lead to unbalanced and physician-centred decisions, whether in favour of either medical or surgical treatment. In general, treatments should be symptom-orientated rather than lesion-orientated. Medical and surgical modalities appear to be similarly effective in reducing pain symptoms, with medications generally more successful for severe dysmenorrhoea and surgery more successful for severe deep dyspareunia caused by fibrotic lesions infiltrating the posterior compartment. Oestrogen-progestogen combinations and progestogen monotherapies are generally safe and well tolerated, provided there are no major contraindications. About three-quarters of patients with superficial peritoneal and ovarian endometriosis and two-thirds of those with infiltrating fibrotic lesions are ultimately satisfied with their medical treatment although the remainder may experience side effects, which may result in non-compliance. Surgery for superficial and ovarian endometriosis is usually safe. When fibrotic infiltrating lesions are present, morbidity varies greatly depending on the skill of the individual surgeon, the need for advanced procedures, such as bowel resection and ureteral reimplantation, and the availability of expert colorectal surgeons and urologists working together in a multidisciplinary approach. The generalizability of published results is adequate for medical treatment but very limited for surgery. Moreover, on the one hand, hormonal drugs induce disease remission but do not cure endometriosis, and symptom relapse is expected when the drugs are discontinued; on the other hand, the same drugs should be used after lesion excision, which also does not cure endometriosis, to prevent an overall cumulative symptom and lesion recurrence rate of 10% per postoperative year. Therefore, the real choice may not be between medical treatment and surgery, but between medical treatment alone and surgery plus postoperative medical treatment. The experience of pain in women with endometriosis is a complex phenomenon that is not exclusively based on nociception, although the role of peripheral and central sensitization is not fully understood. In addition, trauma, and especially sexual trauma, and pelvic floor disorders can cause or contribute to symptoms in many individuals with chronic pelvic pain, and healthcare providers should never take for granted that diagnosed or suspected endometriosis is always the real, or the sole, origin of the referred complaints. Alternative treatment modalities are available that can help address most of the additional causes contributing to symptoms. Pain management in women with endometriosis may be more than a choice between medical and surgical treatment and may require comprehensive care by a multidisciplinary team including psychologists, sexologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, and pain therapists. An often missing factor in successful treatment is empathy on the part of healthcare providers. Being heard and understood, receiving simple and clear explanations and honest communication about uncertainties, being invited to share medical decisions after receiving detailed and impartial information, and being reassured that a team member will be available should a major problem arise, can greatly increase trust in doctors and transform a lonely and frustrating experience into a guided and supported journey, during which coping with this chronic disease is gradually learned and eventually accepted. Within this broader scenario, patient-centred medicine is the priority, and whether or when to resort to surgery or choose the medical option remains the prerogative of each individual woman.

First live birth before surgical verification of endometriosis-a nationwide register study of 18 324 women

STUDY QUESTION

Do women with endometriosis have lower first live birth rate before surgical diagnosis than women without verified endometriosis?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared to reference women, the incidence of first live birth was lower in women prior to surgical verification of endometriosis irrespective of the type of endometriosis.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometriosis is associated with pain and reduced fertility. The mechanism of infertility is partly explained by anatomical, endocrinological, and immunological changes. Over the past decades, the treatment of both endometriosis and infertility has evolved. Knowledge of fertility far before surgical diagnosis of endometriosis in large cohorts and of different types of endometriosis has been lacking. The diagnostic delay of endometriosis is long, 6-7 years.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Retrospective population-based cohort study focused on the time period before the surgical verification of endometriosis. All women with surgical verification of endometriosis in 1998-2012 were identified from the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register and the reference cohort from the Central Population Register. Data on deliveries, gynecological care, and sociodemographic factors before the surgical diagnosis were gathered from Finnish national registers maintained by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, the Digital and Population Data Services Agency, and Statistics Finland.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

All women aged 15-49 years at the time of surgical verification of endometriosis (ICD-10: N80.1-N80.9) in Finland during 1998-2012 were identified (n = 21 620). Of them, we excluded women born in 1980-1999 due to the proximity of the surgical diagnosis (n = 3286) and women left without reference (n = 10) for the final endometriosis cohort of 18 324 women. From the final cohort, we selected sub-cohorts of women with isolated diagnosis of ovarian (n = 6384), peritoneal (n = 5789), and deep (n = 1267) endometriosis. Reference women were matched by age and residence and lacked registered clinical or surgical diagnosis of endometriosis (n = 35 793). The follow-up started at the age of 15 years and ended at the first birth, sterilization, bilateral oophorectomy, hysterectomy, or until the surgical diagnosis of endometriosis or corresponding index day-whichever came first. Incidence rate (IR) and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of first live birth before the surgical verification of endometriosis with corresponding CIs were calculated. In addition, we reported the fertility rate of parous women (the number of all children divided by the number of parous women in the cohort) until the surgical verification of endometriosis. The trends in first births were analysed according to the women's birth cohort, type of endometriosis, and age.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Surgical diagnosis of endometriosis was set at the median age of 35.0 years (IQR 30.0-41.4). Altogether 7363 women (40.2%) with endometriosis and 23 718 (66.3%) women without endometriosis delivered a live born infant before the index day (surgery). The IRs of the first live birth per 100 person-years were 2.64 (95% CI 2.58-2.70) in the endometriosis cohort and 5.21 (95% CI 5.15-5.28) in the reference cohort. Between the endometriosis sub-cohorts, the IRs were similar. The IRR of the first live birth was 0.51 (95% CI 0.49-0.52) between the endometriosis and reference cohorts. Fertility rate per parous woman before the surgical diagnosis was 1.93 (SD 1.00) and 2.16 (SD 1.15) in the endometriosis and reference cohorts (P < 0.01). The median age at the first live birth was 25.5 (IQR 22.3-28.9) and 25.5 (IQR 22.3-28.6) years (P = 0.01), respectively. Between the endometriosis sub-cohorts, women in the ovarian sub-cohort were the oldest at the time of surgical diagnosis with the median age of 37.2 years (IQR 31.4-43.3), (P < 0.001). Altogether 44.1% (2814) of the women with ovarian, 39.4% (2282) with peritoneal, and 40.8% (517) with deep endometriosis delivered a live born infant before the diagnosis. IRRs between the endometriosis sub-cohorts did not differ. Fertility rate per parous woman was lowest, 1.88 (SD 0.95), in the ovarian sub-cohort compared to 1.98 (SD 1.07) in the peritoneal and 2.04 (SD 0.96) in deep endometriosis (P < 0.001). Women with ovarian endometriosis were oldest at first live birth compared to women in other sub-cohorts with a median age of 25.8 years (IQR 22.6-29.1) (P < 0.001). Cumulative distributions of first live birth were presented according to age at first live birth and birth cohorts of the participants.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The increasing age at first live birth, increasing practice of clinical diagnostics, conservative treatment of endometriosis, a possible effect of coexisting adenomyosis, and use of artificial reproductive treatments should be considered when assessing the results. In addition, the study is limited due to possible confounding effects of socioeconomic factors, such as level of education. It should be noted that, in this study, we assessed parity only during the years preceding the surgical verification of endometriosis.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The need for early diagnosis and relevant treatment of endometriosis appears clear given the impairment of fertility prior to its surgical verification.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa and by Finska Läkaresällskapet. The authors report no conflicts of interest. All authors have completed the ICMJE Disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Deep Endometriosis and Infertility: What Is the Impact of Surgery?

In women with deep endometriosis, the spontaneous fertility rate might range from 2 to 10%. The optimal management of these women is still an area of debate. Therefore, this review aims to explore the literature on the impact of deep endometriosis surgery on reproductive outcomes and pregnancy rates in women with and without prior infertility. A total of 392 articles were identified through database searching. Twenty-three studies were eligible to be included in the review. A total of 1548 women were identified, 814 of whom became pregnant, with a mean pregnancy rate of 52.6% (95% CI 49.7-63%). Our review suggests that surgery may improve fertility outcomes. Due to the variability in the studies, it is impossible to stratify fertility outcomes of surgery by the localization of deep endometriosis. More investigations are needed to determine whether surgical management should be first-intention or limited to the failure of medically assisted reproduction treatment.

"The Sword in the Stone": radical excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel shaving-a single-centre experience on 703 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic segmental bowel resection, disc excision and rectal shaving are described as surgical options for the treatment of bowel endometriosis, but the gold standard has not yet established. The aim of the study is to investigate the efficacy of the laparoscopic bowel shaving technique in terms of pain symptomatology and to analyse early and late postoperative complications.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of a series of 703 consecutive patients treated between January 2014 and December 2019 in a tertiary care referral centre. All patients underwent laparoscopic bowel shaving with concomitant radical excision of DIE.

RESULTS

Bilateral posterolateral parametrectomy and ureterolysis were performed, respectively, in 314 (44.7%) and 318 cases (45.2%). A radical hysterectomy was performed in 107 cases (82.9%). Postoperative complications were infrequent: 17 patients required a reoperation (2.4%) and in this subgroup we registered 2 rectovaginal fistulas (0.3%), 4 patients received blood transfusion (0.6%), 12 patients (1.7%) experienced postoperative fever, 6 patients experienced impaired bladder voiding (0.9%) after 6 months. Median follow-up was 14 months. The study reported good clinical and surgical results, with a regression of symptoms (p < 0.0001) and an overall rate of recurrence of 6.5%. Clinical and instrumental criteria of bowel endometriosis relapse were exclusively detected in 5 patients (0.8%). Eleven patients (1.7%) with relapsed endometriosis were reoperated.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel shaving is a feasible and valuable surgical procedure. It is only the last step of a complex surgery which is aimed to minimize the residual quote of infiltrating nodule and requires a multidisciplinary team to achieve optimal treatment preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively.

Safety of in-vitro fertilization in women with endometriosis

Management of women with endometriosis in general is complex. It requires a multidisciplinary and tailored approach. The time of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) may be particularly complicated because women with the disease face peculiar additional risks. In particular, oocytes retrieval may be more difficult and women with endometriomas are exposed to a low but consistent risk of infection and ovarian abscess development. There are also concerns regarding progression of deep invasive peritoneal lesions and misdiagnosis of an occult early ovarian cancer. However, evidence on these latter points is more controversial. Taken together, this body evidence is generally reassuring and does not justify prophylactic surgery prior to IVF to shrink these risks. However, given the uncertainties, women with endometriosis must be informed in depth of these peculiar additional risks.

Impact of Surgery for Deep Infiltrative Endometriosis before In Vitro Fertilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare reproductive outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for deep infiltrative endometriosis (DIE) before in vitro fertilization (IVF) with those in patients who underwent IVF without a previous surgery for DIE, to analyze data according to different types of surgery (complete or incomplete) or subgroups of patients (DIE with or without bowel involvement), and to assess surgical and IVF complications and data regarding safety concerns.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search from January 1980 to November 2019 with no language restriction was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search strategy used the following Medical Subject Headings terms: "in vitro," "fertilization," "IVF," "assisted reproduction," "colorectal," "endometriosis," "deep," "infiltrating," "deep infiltrative endometriosis," "intestinal," "bowel," "rectovaginal," "uterosacral," "vaginal," and "bladder."

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included studies that compared reproductive outcomes in women with infertility with DIE who received IVF with or without a previous surgery for DIE lesions. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan v.5.3; Cochrane Training, London, United Kingdom). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboration.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The systematic search retrieved 150 articles; 98 studies were potentially eligible, and their full texts were reviewed. Of these, 12 studies met our inclusion criteria, and 5 presented data suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis; however, 2 of the studies provided overlapping data, and only the larger study was finally included. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found. The pregnancy rate per patient was 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.64), the pregnancy rate per cycle was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.70), and the live birth rate per patient was 2.22 (95% CI, 1.42-3.46) times more likely for operated patients than for nonoperated ones. The addition of data from the incomplete surgery groups also showed a higher pregnancy rate per patient for surgery before IVF (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95% CI, 1.16-2.28). The results favor previous surgery in DIE with digestive involvement (OR 2.43; 95% CI, 1.13-5.22) and also in DIE without digestive involvement (OR 1.55; 95% CI, 0.61-3.95). A qualitative analysis of the complications of surgery and IVF showed a partial or complete lack of information on these issues as well as high heterogeneity in the reported data. None of these studies is an RCT; therefore, all have a high risk of selection and allocation bias, except for 1 study that statistically controlled the latter risk by using propensity scores. Funnel plots showed no asymmetry.

CONCLUSION

The results were very consistent for all the studied outcomes, showing a statistically significant benefit for surgery before IVF, although they should be confirmed with RCTs. In addition to the reproductive outcomes, safety data should also be reported to obtain a complete assessment of the risks and benefits.

Fertility in patients with untreated rectosigmoid endometriosis

RESEARCH QUESTION

Several studies have investigated reproductive outcomes following surgical treatment of colorectal endometriosis, mainly segmental colorectal resection. This study examines pregnancy and live birth rates of women with rectosigmoid endometriosis not treated by surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of data collected between May 2009 and January 2020 related to 215 women affected by rectosigmoid endometriosis wishing to conceive. Patients had a diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis by transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging enema. Patients with estimated bowel stenosis >70% at computed tomographic colonography and/or subocclusive/occlusive symptoms were excluded.

RESULTS

During the median length of follow-up of 31 months (range 13-63 months), the total pregnancy and live birth rates of the study population were 47.9% and 45.1%, respectively. Sixty-two women had a live birth after natural conception (28.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.8-35.6%) with a median time required to conceive of 10 months (range 2-34 months). Eighty-three women underwent infertility treatments (38.6%, 95% CI 32.1-45.5%); among these, 68 patients underwent IVF either directly (n = 51) or after intrauterine insemination (IUI) failure (n = 17). Time to conception was significantly higher in women having conceived by IVF than in those having conceived naturally (P < 0.001) or by IUI (P = 0.006). In patients undergoing IVF cycles, a worsening of some pain and intestinal symptoms was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

At median follow-up of 31 months, women with rectosigmoid endometriosis have a 48% pregnancy rate. However, these patients must be referred to centres specialized in managing endometriosis to properly assess symptoms and degree of bowel stenosis.

Infertility in women with bowel endometriosis: first-line assisted reproductive technology results in satisfactory cumulative live-birth rates

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the assisted reproductive technology (ART) cumulative live-birth rate (LBR) in a cohort of bowel endometriosis patients with no prior history of surgery for endometriosis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred and one consecutive infertile bowel-endometriosis patients with no prior history of surgery for endometriosis in whom the diagnosis of endometriosis was based on published imaging criteria using transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

INTERVENTION(S)

First-line ART.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Cumulative LBR, with statistical analysis via Kaplan Meier method with a "conservative" method, whereby it was assumed that no live births took place for patients who did not return.

RESULT(S)

Between January 2016 and December 2018, 101 bowel endometriosis patients underwent 176 ART cycles. The mean number of deep-infiltrating endometriosis lesions per patient was 3 ± 0.9, with a mean number of bowel lesions of 1.3 ± 0.6. Seventy-three percent of the patients had associated endometriomas, and 88.1% had associated adenomyosis. Overall, the cumulative LBR after four ART cycles was 64.4%, using the conservative Kaplan-Meier method.

CONCLUSION(S)

The ART cumulative LBR was very satisfactory (64.4%) in bowel endometriosis patients with no prior history of surgery for endometriosis. In light of these data, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons before systematically referring infertile bowel endometriosis patients to fertility-preserving surgery because as first-line ART appears to offer satisfactory results.

Pregnancy and delivery outcomes in women with rectovaginal endometriosis treated either conservatively or operatively

OBJECTIVE

To study reproductive outcomes, and pregnancy and delivery complications after conservative or operative treatment of rectovaginal endometriosis during long-term follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Women with rectovaginal endometriosis referred to hospital due to any indication from 2004 to 2013 (N = 543) who were treated initially either conservatively (group CONS, n = 183), or operatively (OPER, n = 360) either with resection of rectovaginal nodule (RVR, n = 192) or with concomitant bowel resection (BR, n = 132).

INTERVENTION(S)

Conservative or operative management.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rate, live-birth rate, and assessment of the complications during pregnancy and delivery.

RESULTS(S)

Between women in the CONS group or OPER group, no differences were found in either clinical pregnancy rate (56%, n = 102 vs. 50%, n = 181) or live-birth rate (48%, n = 87 vs. 42%, n = 153). Of the pregnancies, 64% (n = 65) and 49% (n = 89), respectively, started after medically assisted reproduction. No differences emerge in the subanalysis of women <40 years-old who wished to conceive. The most common pregnancy complication was preterm birth: 15% (n = 13) in the CONS group and 20% (n = 30) in the OPER group. The cesarean delivery rate also was high (46%, n = 40 vs. 49%, n = 76). Complications emerged in 21% (n = 10) versus 29% (n = 23) of vaginal deliveries and 45% (n = 18) versus 53% (n = 40) of cesarean deliveries. The most common delivery complication was excessive bleeding. The follow-up period was 4.9 years in the CONS group and 5.6 years in the OPER group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Women with rectovaginal endometriosis have comparable and good reproductive prognosis regardless of the treatment method.