Cited by 59Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsGynecological conditions and treatments

Surgical treatment of deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis: in favor of less aggressive surgery

Darwish, Basma, Roman, Horace·2016·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum is a severe disease concerning young women of reproductive age. Because it is a benign condition, aggressive surgical treatment and subsequent complications are not always accepted by young patients. Two surgical approaches exist: the radical approach, employing colorectal resection; and the conservative approach, based on rectal shaving or full-thickness disc excision. At present, the majority of patients with rectal endometriosis worldwide are managed by the radical approach. Conversely, as high as 66% of patients with colorectal endometriosis can be managed by either rectal shaving or full-thickness disc excision. Most arguments that used to support the large use of the radical approach may now be disputed. The presumed higher risk of recurrence related to conservative surgery can be balanced by a supposed higher risk of postoperative bowel dysfunction related to the radical approach. Bowel occult microscopic endometriosis renders debatable the hypothesis that more aggressive surgery can definitively cure endometriosis. Although most surgeons consider that radical surgery is unavoidable in patients with rectal nodules responsible for digestive stenosis, conservative surgery can be successfully performed in a majority of cases. In multifocal bowel endometriosis, multiple conservative procedures may be proposed, provided that the nodules are separated by segments of healthy bowel of longer than 5 cm. Attempting conservation of a maximum length of rectum may reduce the risk of postoperative anterior rectal resection syndrome and subsequent debilitating bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. Promotion of less aggressive surgery with an aim to better spare organ function has become a general tendency in both oncologic and benign pathologies; thus the management of deep colorectal endometriosis should logically be concerned, too.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.189

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Darwish, B., & Roman, H.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen (FR)
Corresponding author
Roman, Horace
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
215
Issue
2
Pages
195-200
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2273166960
Cited by
59
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
15.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
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 › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
deep infiltrating endometriosis, rectal endometriosis, colorectal endometriosis, conservative surgery, rectal shaving, bowel dysfunction, endometriosis recurrence, organ preservation
MeSH terms
Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Quality of Life, Rectal Diseases, Recurrence, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Treatment Outcome

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