Impact of Bowel Endometriosis Surgery on Bowel and Bladder Function, Pain Symptoms and Quality of Life

Conservative versus Radical Surgery for Women with Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Bowel Function

OBJECTIVE

To assess bowel function in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis according to surgical approach (radical vs conservative).

DATA SOURCES

Five databases were searched from 1970 to September 2021 to retrieve studies comparing radical (colorectal segmental resection) and conservative (shaving or discoid excision) surgery for bowel function in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

No language restriction was applied. Two reviewers extracted and combined data from the included studies, applying a meta-analytic model with random effects in all calculations. Results are expressed in risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

We included 13 studies in our meta-analysis, and most of them were of nonrandomized design. Conservative surgery had fewer events of constipation and frequent bowel movements when compared with radical surgery (RR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.21-4.43; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; RR, 2.80; 95% CI 1.17-6.75; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, respectively). Defecation pain, anal incontinence loss, minor and major lower anterior resection syndrome, and Clavien-Dindo complications grade I to IV showed no statistically significant difference between surgeries. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment was low to very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Conservative surgery (shaving or discoid excision) presented fewer events of constipation and frequent bowel movements than colorectal segmental resection. There was a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations regarding bowel function.

Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to analyze the available literature by conducting a systematic review to assess the possible effects of nerve-sparing segmental resection and conventional bowel resection on postoperative complications for the treatment of colorectal endometriosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from 1997 to 2021 in order to perform a systematic review. Studies including patients undergoing segmental resection for colorectal endometriosis including adequate follow-up, data on postoperative complications and postoperative sequelae were enrolled in this review. Selected articles were evaluated and divided in two groups: Nerve-sparing resection (NSR), and conventional segmental resection not otherwise specified (SRNOS). Within the NSRs, studies mentioning preservation of the rectal artery supply (artery and nerve-sparing SR - ANSR) and not reporting preservation of the artery supply (NSR not otherwise specified - NSRNOS) were further analyzed.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021250974.

RESULTS

A total of 7549 patients from 63 studies were included in the data analysis. Forty-three of these publications did not mention the preservation or the removal of the hypogastric nerve plexus, or main rectal artery supply and were summarized as SRNOS. The remaining 22 studies were listed under the NSR group. The mean size of the resected deep endometriosis lesions and patients' body mass index were comparable between SRNOS and NSR. A mean of 3.6% (0-16.6) and 2.3% (0-10.5%) of rectovaginal fistula development was reported in patients who underwent SRNOS and NSR, respectively. Anastomotic leakage rates varied from 0% to 8.6% (mean 1.7 ± 2%) in SRNOS compared with 0% to 8% (mean 1.7 ± 2%) in patients undergoing NSR. Urinary retention (4.5% and 4.9%) and long-term bladder catheterization (4.9% and 5.6%) were frequently reported in SRNOS and NSR. There was insufficient information about pain or the recurrence rates for women undergoing SRNOS and NSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data describe the outcomes of different segmental resection techniques. However, the data are inhomogeneous and not sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding a possible advantage of one technique over the other.

Conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis: A systematic analysis of complications

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis of the bowel can be associated with significant morbidity. Surgery to remove it carries risks. Options include conservative shaving or discoid resection and more radical segmental bowel resection.

AIMS

To determine if more conservative shaving or discoid bowel resection is associated with fewer risks than more radical segmental resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study is a systematic review. We considered eligible any cohort, observational or randomised controlled trial (RCT) study of at least ten women per arm comparing conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis. We divided complications into two groups, major and minor. One additional article was added due to its significance in answering our study question as well as the high quality of the study design as an RCT.

RESULTS

There were 3041 studies screened. Eleven studies were included (n = 1648). For major complications, the risk ratio for shaving and disc excision vs segmental resection is 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.46), while the risk difference is -0.25 (95% CI -0.41 to 0.10). For minor complications, the risk ratio is 0.63 (95% CI 0.36-1.09), while the risk difference is -0.03 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative shaving or discoid excision surgery is associated with reduced complications. Previous studies demonstrated a trend toward this finding, but suffered from relatively low participant numbers, increasing the risk of type one statistical error. Our results allow surgeons to make informed choices about potential complications when deciding how to approach bowel endometriosis. The results also allow patients to have more information about the risks. However, outcomes in the studies analysed are heterogenous and are from low-quality evidence.

Systematic review of quality of life measures in patients with endometriosis

OBJECTIVES

Endometriosis and quality of life has been the subject of much research, however, there is little consensus on how best to evaluate quality of life in endometriosis, resulting in many and diverse scales being used. In our study, we aim to identify quality of life scales used in endometriosis, to review their strengths and weaknesses and to establish what would define an ideal scale in the evaluation of endometriosis-related quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English and French for the period from 1980 to February 2017, using the words 'endometriosis' and 'quality of life'. Publications were selected if they reported on quality of life in patients with endometriosis and specified use of a quality of life scale. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed in order to establish the strengths and weaknesses for each scale (systematic registration number: PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014014210).

RESULTS

A total of 1538 articles publications were initially identified. After exclusion of duplicates and application of inclusion criteria, 201 studies were selected for analysis. The SF-36, a generic HRQoL measure, was found to be the most frequently used scale, followed by the EHP-30, a measure specific to endometriosis. Both perform well, when compared with other scales, with scale weaknesses offset by strengths. EHP-5 and EQ-5D also showed to be of good quality. All four were the only scales to report on MCID studied in endometriosis patients.

CONCLUSION

For clinical practice, routine evaluation of HRQOL in women with endometriosis is essential both for health-care providers and patients. Both SF-36 and EHP-30 perform better overall with regard to their strengths and weaknesses when compared to other scales.