Cited by 23Endometriosis Research and TreatmentGynecological conditions and treatmentsEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management

Prospective study concerning 71 cases of caesarean scar endometriosis (CSE)

Pas, Katarzyna, Joanna, Skręt-Magierło, Renata, Raś, Skręt, Andrzej, Barnaś, Edyta·2017·Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Abstract

A prospective study was undertaken involving 71 patients with caesarean scar endometriosis (CSE) between the years 2007 and 2013. A prospective study enabled us to find out: mean age of patients with CSE; 34.0 years (range 22.0–48.0), time between CS and diagnosis of CSE; 12.0 months (range 19.0–39.0), duration between symptoms and surgery; 24.0 months (range 1.0–204.0), mean operation time; 40.0 min. (range 15.0–160.0), and mean lesion size; 54.4 ± 42.3 mm3. In three patients (4.2%) a large deficit in the abdominal wall was closed by means of polypropylene mesh. One of them conceived a year later. Surgical excision is the only effective treatment in patients with CSE. Wide local excision with clear margins is the key to prevent recurrence. Repair of large post-excisional deficits with mesh may also be offered to woman planning their next pregnancy.Impact statement• What is already known on this subject?Endometriosis in the scar may occur after various abdominal surgeries, more frequently after caesarean sections. The excision of large nodules is connected with suboptimal cosmetic outcomes and the possibility of recurrence.• What the results of this study add?In this study including 71 patients with CSE, wide excision with electrocoagulatory was associated with a single recurrence in 12-month follow-up. In three patients (4.2%) large deficits in the abdominal wall were closed with the use of polypropylene mesh. One of them conceived a year later and had a successful pregnancy.• What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or futher research?Surgical excision is the only effective treatment in patients with CSE. Wide local excision with clear margins is the key to preventing recurrence. Repair of large post excisional deficit with mesh may be offered also to woman planning pregnancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01443615.2017.1305333

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 23

Authors
Pas, K., Joanna, S.-M., Renata, R., Skręt, A., & Barnaś, E.
Affiliations
  • Clinical Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State Hospital, Rzeszów, Poland;
  • University of Rzeszów (PL)
Corresponding author
Barnaś, Edyta
Venue
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Published
2017-04-11
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
775-778
ISSN
  • 0144-3615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-6893
OpenAlex
W2606242163
Cited by
23
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (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
surgical excision, wide local excision, electrocoagulation, recurrence prevention, polypropylene mesh repair, abdominal wall defect, pregnancy after surgery, cesarean section
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Cicatrix, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Young Adult

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