Cited by 37Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementPelvic floor disorders treatments

Long-term Outcomes Following Surgical Management of Rectal Endometriosis: Seven-year Follow-up of Patients Enrolled in a Randomized Trial

Roman, Horace, Huet, Emmanuel, Bridoux, Valérie, Khalil, Haitham, Hennetier, Clotilde, Bubenheim, Michael, Braund, Sophia, Tuech, Jean-Jacques·2022·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract

Study objective To compare functional outcomes, recurrence rate, and pregnancy likelihood in patients undergoing conservative or radical surgery for deep rectal endometriosis followed up for 7 years. Design Prospective study in a cohort of patients enrolled in a 2-arm randomized trial from March 2011 to August 2013. Setting A tertiary referral center. Patients Fifty-five patients with deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Interventions Patients underwent either segmental resection or nodule excision via shaving or disk excision, depending on randomization that was performed preoperatively using sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Measurements and main results The primary end point was the number of patients experiencing one of the following symptoms: constipation, frequent bowel movements, anal incontinence, or bladder dysfunction 24 months after surgery. The secondary end points were values of gastrointestinal and overall quality of life scores. The 7-year recurrence rates (new deep endometriosis nodules infiltrating the rectum) in the excision vs segmental resection arms were 7.4 % vs 0% (p = .24). One of the symptoms included in the definition of the primary outcomes was recorded in 55.6% vs 60.7% of patients (p = .79). However, 51.9% vs 53.6% of patients considered their bowel movements as normal (p = .99). An intention-to-treat comparison of overall quality of life scores did not find a difference between the 2 groups 7 years after surgery. At the end of the 7-year study period, 31 of 37 patients who tried to conceive were successful (83.8%), including 27 pregnancies (57.4%) resulting from natural conception and 20 pregnancies (42.6%) resulting from assisted reproductive technology procedures. The pregnancy rate was 82.4% vs 85% in the 2 arms (p = .99). A 75.7% live birth rate was recorded. At the end of the follow-up, there were 15 women with 1 child (40.5%) and 13 women with 2 children (35.1%). During the 7-year follow-up, the reoperation rates were 37% and 35.7%, respectively, in each arm (p = .84). Among the 27 reoperation procedures during the follow-up period, 11 (40.7%) were for postoperative complications, 7 (25.9%) were necessary before assisted reproductive technology management, 8 (29.6%) were for recurrent abdominal or pelvic pain, and 1 (3.7%) was for midline ventral hernia after pregnancy. Conclusion Our study did not reveal a considerable difference in terms of digestive functional outcomes, recurrence rate, reoperation risk, and pregnancy likelihood when conservative and radical rectal surgeries for deep endometriosis were compared 7 years after surgery. The postoperative pregnancy rate observed in our series was high.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.02.007

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
Roman, H., Huet, E., Bridoux, V., Khalil, H., Hennetier, C., Bubenheim, M., Braund, S., & Tuech, J.-J.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
  • Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen (FR)
Corresponding author
Roman, Horace
Venue
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
767-775
ISSN
1553-4650 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4213052758
Cited by
37
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5
FWCI
6.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Keywords
rectal endometriosis, deep infiltrating endometriosis, segmentectomy, endometriosis recurrence, bowel dysfunction, anal incontinence, quality of life, pregnancy rate, live birth rate, reoperation, long-term surgical outcomes, assisted reproduction, constipation
MeSH terms
Child, Endometriosis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Laparoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Rectal Diseases, 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