Cited by 149Endometriosis Research and TreatmentGynecological conditions and treatmentsUterine Myomas and Treatments

Laparoscopic nerve-sparing complete excision of deep endometriosis: is it feasible?

Landi, S., Ceccaroni, M., Perutelli, A., Allodi, C., Barbieri, F., Fiaccavento, A., Ruffo, G., McVeigh, E. +2 more·2006·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Background Little is known about the morbidity associated with laparoscopic complete excision of endometriosis in terms of urinary, digestive and sexual function. Methods We performed a prospective non-randomized study in 45 patients with laparoscopic complete excision of all detectable foci of endometriosis with segmental bowel resection using a non nerve-sparing technique (control group-group A n=20) and a nerve-sparing technique (case group-group B n=25). At initial gynaecological evaluation, and at follow-up details on dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain, dyspareunia and dyschezia were evaluated using an interview-based questionnaire (10-point analogue rating scale: 0=absent, 10=unbearable). Results The mean (+/-SD) follow-up period was 15.3+/-10 months (range, 8.8-23 months) for group A and 3.5+/-2.1 months (range, 0.3-5.2 months) for group B. In the immediate postoperative course, in group A three women required blood transfusion vs seven women in group B (P=0.003). The median time to resume the voiding function was significantly shorter in group B (12.5 vs 3.0 days; P Conclusions Laparoscopic nerve-sparing complete excision of endometriosis seems to be feasible and offers good results in terms of bladder morbidity reduction with apparently higher satisfaction than classical technique. Larger series with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dei324

Cites

1 of 1 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
Landi, S., Ceccaroni, M., Perutelli, A., Allodi, C., Barbieri, F., Fiaccavento, A., Ruffo, G., McVeigh, E., Zanolla, L., & Minelli, L.
Affiliations
Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria (IT)
Corresponding author
Landi, S.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2006-01-31
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
774-781
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2102284561
Cited by
149
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
10.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (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 › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
deep infiltrating endometriosis, laparoscopic resection, nerve-sparing technique, segmental bowel resection, postoperative urinary dysfunction, blood transfusion, dyspareunia, dyschezia, patient satisfaction, pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Endometrium, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Postoperative Pain, Laparoscopy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reoperation, Splanchnic Nerves, 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