Cited by 7Endometriosis Research and TreatmentGynecological conditions and treatmentsTeratomas and Epidermoid Cysts

Clinical and imaging features of abdominal wall endometriomas

Open access
Edwards, Kylie, Tsai, Shih‐Han, Kothari, Alka·2018·Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Abstract

Abdominal wall endometrioma (AWE) is a rare condition (incidence 1% following caesarean section) with a significant variation in clinical symptoms, imaging findings and interval between initial procedure and diagnosis. We present two cases with differing clinical presentations. AWE may be difficult to diagnose pre‐operatively, with as many as 75% of lesions diagnosed incorrectly prior to surgical excision. Ultrasonography is a useful tool in determining the extent of the endometrioma and can help exclude differential diagnosis such as hernia. Ultrasound appearance of AWE is often variable; however, the most common presentation is of a solid hypoechoic mass lesion with peripheral vascularity. Margins may be irregular and infiltrate the surrounding soft tissues. Lesions may be cystic or multicystic or may have both solid and cystic components. Power Doppler may demonstrate internal vascularity. If ultrasound findings are inconclusive, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be considered to assist in making the diagnosis. Ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration of the lesion may assist in the diagnosis, but seeding of the needle tract has been reported and must be included in the resection margins. Sonoelastography has shown some promise in early studies for improving diagnostic accuracy for AWE.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajum.12076

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Wolf GC, Singh KB. Caesarean scar endometriosis: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1989; 44: 89-94.
  2. Roberge RJ, Kantor WJ, Scorza L. Rectus abdominis endometri- oma. Am J Emerg Med 1999; 17(7): 675-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Edwards, K., Tsai, S., & Kothari, A.
Affiliations
  • Queensland Health (AU)
  • Redcliffe Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Edwards, Kylie
Venue
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
24-28
ISSN
  • 1836-6864 (ISSN-L)
  • 2205-0140
OpenAlex
W2792885117
Cited by
7
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Teratomas and Epidermoid Cysts
Keywords
endometriosis, cesarean section complications, ultrasonography, power Doppler, ultrasound elastography, fine-needle aspiration, surgical excision, surgical margins, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review