Successful pregnancy after excision of cesarean scar endometriosis with uterovesicocutaneous fistula: A rare case report

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.

Is dienogest a convenient treatment option for cesarean scar endometriosis or should it be treated surgically?

OBJECTIVES

Endometriosis-related conditions such as subcutaneous endometriosis have been frequently seen in recent years, and dienogest or surgical excision is generally preferred as a treatment option. Our aim in this study is to determine which treatment option will be more effective in reducing the symptoms of patients with cesarean scar endometriosis. Study design This prospective study was performed with 21 patients diagnosed with cesarean scar endometriosis. The demographic features of the patients, lesion sizes before and after medical and surgical treatment, VAS scores and Ca-125 levels were recorded. VAS scores and lesion sizes were compared before-after medical treatment and before-after surgery in same group.

RESULTS

A total of 18 women were identified, with a mean age of 32.3 ± 5.7 years. No significant decrease in lesion size was observed in the 1st and 6th-month controls after the use of dienogest (p > 0,05), while a significant decrease in VAS scores was detected (p < 0,05). After surgery, the decrease in both lesion size and VAS scores was found statistically significant (p < 0,05).

CONCLUSION

Dienogest, which is frequently used in the medical treatment of pelvic and ovarian endometriosis, reduces pain minimally in cesarean scar endometriosis but does not provide a change in lesion size. Therefore, surgical treatment of cesarean scar endometriosis seems to be more effective in reducing pain and decreasing the size of the lesions.

Abdominal wall endometriosis: A monocentric continuous series and review of the literature

Introduction:

Endometriosis is characterized by the presence of endometrial cells anywhere outside the uterine cavity. Endometriosis has been encountered on surgical scars especially resulting from a cesarean section recently. Our aim was to investigate the patients with abdominal wall endometriosis in our clinics where all the patients having this disease are managed via surgical resection. We also compared them with the patients presented in the literature.

Methods:

A study was conducted on the patients with histopathological diagnosis of abdominal wall endometriosis as a case series. All the subjects were analyzed through a comprehensive medical assessment including documentation of the detailed history and physical and gynecological examination based on the patients’ medical records.

Results:

A total of 53 patients diagnosed with abdominal wall endometriosis were included in this study. The mean age and the mean body mass index of the patients were 32.6 ± 6.5 years and 25.2 ± 3.5 kg/m2, respectively. A total of 49 patients had at least one operation history, mainly cesarean section. The most common sites for abdominal wall endometriosis were skin and the region containing the rectus abdominis muscle and rectus sheath, 56.6% and 18.9% respectively. The main symptom was the pain getting worse during menstruation and the presence of a mass in all patients. The main diagnostic tools in all patients were detailed history and physical examination, ultrasonography, and then histopathological confirmation after surgical excision.

Conclusion:

Abdominal wall endometriosis is a common diagnosis mainly due to increased cesarean section rate. Clinical suspicion has the most important place in correct diagnosis and management of abdominal wall endometriosis.