Conservative approach to rectosigmoid endometriosis: a cohort study

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.

Endometriosis as an Uncommon Cause of Intestinal Obstruction-A Comprehensive Literature Review

The prevalence of intestinal endometriosis has been estimated to be between 3% and 37% of all endometriosis cases. Cases of intestinal occlusion due to endometriosis foci on the small bowel and on the large bowel are even rarer, with a reported prevalence of 0.1-0.7%. The aim of this literature review was to summarize the available published evidence on the diagnosis, characteristics, and management of intestinal occlusion due to endometriosis. The search on PubMed retrieved 295 records, of which 158 were rejected following a review of the title and abstract. After reviewing the full text, 97 studies met the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study (PICOS) criteria and were included in the analysis. The total number of patients with bowel occlusion due to endometriosis included in the studies was 107. The occlusive endometrial foci were localized on the ileum in 38.3% of the cases, on the rectosigmoid in 34.5% of the cases, at the ileocecal junction and the appendix in 14.9% of the cases, and at the rectum in 10.2% of the cases. Only one case reported large bowel obstruction by endometriosis of the hepatic flexure of the colon extending to the transverse colon (0.9%), and in one case the obstruction was caused by an omental giant endometrioid cyst compressing the intestines. We identified six cases of postmenopausal females with acute bowel obstruction due to endometriosis. Malignant degeneration of endometriosis was also identified as a cause of intestinal occlusion. The mechanisms of obstruction include the presence of a mass in the lumen of the intestine or in the wall of the intestine, extrinsic compression, adhesions, or intussusception.

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.

Conservative treatment of rectosigmoid endometriosis: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION

Deep infiltrating endometriosis is a common cause of pelvic pain. However, some patients have limited problems that may be controlled by medical treatment, so avoiding the potentially severe complications of major surgery. This approach requires detailed knowledge on quality of life and clinical symptoms over time. The aim of the study was to monitor these parameters in patients with rectosigmoid endometriosis treated with oral contraceptives, oral gestagens, and/or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Moreover, nodule size measurements performed with transvaginal sonography were correlated to severity of symptoms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Conservatively treated patients on oral contraceptives, oral gestagens, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device underwent transvaginal sonography and answered a self-administered questionnaire regarding clinical symptoms and quality of life (Short Form 36 and Endometriosis Health Profile 30) at baseline, and 6 and 12 months later.

RESULTS

Eighty women completed the follow up. Scores of quality of life were comparable to normative data for Danish women of similar age and did not change with time. No association between change in size of the rectosigmoid nodule and change in symptoms was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports that simple treatment with oral contraceptives, oral gestagens, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device represents a viable therapeutic approach to rectosigmoid Deep infiltrating endometriosis, provided that proper selection of patients in need of surgery exists.

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

Bowel surgery for colorectal endometriosis is being promoted to infertile women without severe sub-occlusive symptoms, with the objective of improving the likelihood of conception. Contrary to rectal shaving, bowel surgery involving full-thickness disk excision and segmental resection entails opening of the intestinal lumen thus increasing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. About 1 in 10 patients undergoing colorectal resection for intestinal endometriosis will experience severe sequelae, including anastomotic dehiscence, rectovaginal fistula formation, and bladder and bowel denervation. Similar to other surgical procedures aiming at enhancing fertility in women with endometriosis, bowel surgery has been introduced into clinical practice without adequate evaluation through randomized controlled trials. According to systematic literature reviews based mainly on case series, the incremental gain of adding bowel procedures to standard surgery appears uncertain in terms of pregnancy rate after both natural attempts and IVF. Considering the methodological drawbacks and the high risk of bias in the available observational studies, it is not possible to exclude the suggestion that the benefit of colorectal surgery has been overestimated. Given the risk of harms to women's health and the important ethical implications, less emphasis should be put on strict statistical significance and more emphasis should be placed on the magnitude of the effect size. In this regard, the published data may not be generalizable, as the surgeons publishing their results may not be representative of all surgeons. Until the results of adequately designed and conducted RCTs are available, colorectal surgery with the sole intent of improving the reproductive performance of infertile patients with intestinal endometriosis should be performed exclusively within research settings and by highly experienced surgeons. Women should be informed about the uncertainties regarding the harms and benefits of bowel surgery in different clinical conditions, and preoperative counselling must be conducted impartially with the objective of achieving a truly shared medical decision.