Cited by 74Endometriosis Research and TreatmentGynecological conditions and treatmentsEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management

Laparoscopic Excision of Lesions Suggestive of Endometriosis or Otherwise Atypical in Appearance: Relationship Between Visual Findings and Final Histologic Diagnosis

Albee, Robert B., Sinervo, Ken, Fisher, Deidre T.·2008·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract

Study objective We sought to assess accuracy of visual diagnosis of laparoscopically excised visceral and peritoneal abnormalities suggestive of endometriosis by comparison with final histologic diagnosis. Design Prospective study of 2005 tissue specimens from 512 patients undergoing laparoscopy for evaluation of pelvic pain was conducted (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting A private practice referral center for treatment of endometriosis. Patients From February 1992 through December 1998, 512 patients underwent laparoscopic excision of endometriosis. In all patients, the primary indication for surgery was pelvic pain with either prior surgical diagnosis or clinical history consistent with endometriosis. Interventions All areas of viscera and peritoneum either with typical appearance suggestive of endometriosis or atypical appearance were completely excised and examined histologically. At laparoscopy, all excised lesions were documented in a diagram by the primary surgeon according to anatomic site and visual description and were labeled as either suggestive of endometriosis or otherwise atypical in appearance. The hospital pathology department received entire lesions fixed in formalin and evaluated specimens for presence or absence of endometriosis. Pathologists, who were blinded to the surgeon's suspicion of endometriosis, were provided only the anatomic site of excised tissue. By definition, diagnosis of endometriosis was made when histologic evidence existed of both endometrial glands and stroma. Measurements and main results Diagrams detailing appearance, anatomic site, and surgeon's suspicion of endometriosis versus atypical lesions were compared with final histologic diagnosis. The greatest number of patient lesions were excised from cul-de-sac (n = 309). For this site, using visual criteria for diagnosis of endometriosis, positive predictive value was 93.9%, sensitivity was 69.3%, negative predictive value was 41.9%, and specificity was 83.1%. Prevalence was noted to be 79.0% and accuracy was 72.2%. In addition, atypical-appearing tissue not presumed to be endometriosis was confirmed to be endometriosis histologically in 24.3%. In examining tissue specimens from multiple anatomic sites, laparoscopic visual diagnosis of typical endometriosis generally had high positive predictive value. However, both sensitivity and negative predictive value were lower than expected because of atypical lesions subsequently diagnosed as endometriosis. Conclusions These data suggest that when the surgical objective is complete eradication of endometriosis, the surgeon must be prepared to excise all lesions suggestive of endometriosis and tissue atypical in appearance as in most anatomic sites approximately 25% of atypical specimens proved to be endometriosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.08.619

Cites

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?

  • For superficial peritoneal lesions, histological confirmation matters because lesions vary in appearance, including classic blue-black and non-classic clear, red, yellow-brown, white, or scar-like forms.

    “Such confirmation is important for superficial peritoneal lesions, which vary to include classic (blueblack; considered 'diagnostic') and non-classic or subtle (clear or red, yellowish brown, white, scar-like) lesions”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 74

Authors
Albee, R. B., Sinervo, K., & Fisher, D. T.
Corresponding author
Albee, Robert B.
Venue
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
32-37
ISSN
1553-4650 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047595374
Cited by
74
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
endometriosis, laparoscopic resection, visual diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, histopathological diagnosis, atypical lesions, pelvic pain, cul-de-sac, positive predictive value, sensitivity and specificity, peritoneal lesions, visceral lesions, endometriosis recurrence
MeSH terms
Tissue Adhesions, Douglas' Pouch, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Laparoscopy, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Pelvic Pain

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