Cited by 30Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsUterine Myomas and Treatments

Laparoscopic versus laparotomic radical en bloc hysterectomy and colorectal resection for endometriosis

Daraï, Emile, Ballester, Marcos, Chereau, Elisabeth, Coutant, Charles, Rouzier, Roman, Wafo, Estelle·2010·Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract

Background Radical en bloc hysterectomy and colorectal resection (REHCR) is the ultimate and radical surgery for extensive pelvic endometriosis. Our aims were to evaluate feasibility, quality of life, and urinary function after REHCR by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy.Methods Single-center, retrospective study of 29 endometriosis patients having undergone REHCR (16 by laparoscopy, 13 by laparotomy). Gynecologic and digestive symptoms, quality of life [Short-Form (SF)-36 health status], and urinary function [International Prostate Score Symptoms (IPSS) and Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (BFLUTS)] were evaluated using validated questionnaires.Results Except for mean age, no difference in epidemiologic characteristics was found between groups. Mean follow-up was 14 months (range 1-78 months). Four of the 16 patients (25%) of the laparoscopic group required laparoconversion. Consumption of analgesic drugs was lower in the laparoscopic group, and diarrhea (P < 0.001) and lower back pain (P < 0.001) improved. Improvement in dysmenorrhea (P < 0.001), dyspareunia (P < 0.001), asthenia (P < 0.001), and quality of life was observed without difference between groups. Urinary function was not altered and did not differ between groups.Conclusion Our data support the feasibility of REHCR by laparoscopy with less analgesic consumption. Efficacy in terms of symptoms and improvement in quality of life were similar between groups, suggesting that laparoscopy should be offered to patients requiring REHCR.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00464-010-1089-8

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daraï, E., Ballester, M., Chereau, E., Coutant, C., Rouzier, R., & Wafo, E.
Affiliations
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
Venue
Surgical Endoscopy
Published
2010-06-08
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
3060-3067
ISSN
  • 0930-2794 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2218
OpenAlex
W2085948896
Cited by
30
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Surgical Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, colorectal resection, laparoscopic surgery, laparotomy, quality of life, urinary function, lower urinary tract symptoms, analgesic use, postoperative complications, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia
MeSH terms
Adult, Colonic Diseases, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Laparotomy, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Rectal Diseases, Retrospective Studies

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