The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Role of Laparoscopy in Chronic Pelvic Pain: Promise and Pitfalls
Abstract
Published studies relating to the usefulness of diagnostic and operative laparoscopy in women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) were reviewed. This revealed that approximately 40 per cent of all laparoscopies were done for CPP. However, the definition of CPP was found to be nebulous and inconsistent, and that muddled definitive conclusions about patient diagnoses and treatments. The following definition of CPP was proposed: nonmenstrual pain of 3 or more months duration that localizes to the anatomic pelvis and is severe enough to cause functional disability and require medical or surgical treatment. A survey of published reports showed laparoscopically diagnosable abnormalities in 61 per cent of patients, compared with abnormalities in 28 per cent of women without CPP. Studies in adolescents were also reviewed and showed that adolescents with CPP also had significant laparoscopically diagnosed abnormalities, with 78 per cent showing some pathology, especially endometriosis (40 per cent). Endometriosis, pelvic adhesions, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, and ovarian cysts were the diagnoses most commonly made via laparoscopy in CPP patients. The potential roles of each of these abnormalities in CPP were discussed, as well as the results of laparoscopic treatment of each disease. Laparoscopy was also found to have a limited role in women with CPP after hysterectomy or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, with usefulness in diagnosing and treating adhesions and residual ovary syndrome, although its role in ovarian remnant syndrome was uncertain. Overall, the data showed that less than 50 per cent of women with CPP were helped by diagnostic and operative laparoscopy, stressing the need for both physicians and patients to recognize that laparoscopy is neither the ultimate evaluation nor the panacea for CPP.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“among women who undergo laparoscopy, endometriosis is found in one-third who undergo surgery for CPP, compared with only 5% of those who do not have infertility or CPP”
From Chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis: translational evidence of the relationship and implications (2011) · cites this paper as Howard, 1993
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Latthe, P. M., Latthe, M., Say, L., Gülmezoglu, M., & Khan, K. S. (2006) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-177 · Cited by 764
Factors predisposing women to chronic pelvic pain: systematic review
Latthe, P. M., Mignini, L. E., Gray, R. G., Hills, R. K., & Khan, K. S. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38748.697465.55 · Cited by 591
Endometriosis and pelvic pain: epidemiological evidence of the relationship and implications
Fauconnier, A., & Chapron, C. (2005) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi029 · Cited by 522
“Definition of chronic pelvic pain symptoms and potential bias related to it There is considerable variety in the definition of chronic pelvic pain (Howard, 1993).”
BackgroundInfluentialHoward, F. M. (2003) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02723-0 · Cited by 487
“Chronic pelvic pain is nonmenstrual pelvic pain of 6 or more months duration that is severe enough to cause functional disability or require medical or surgical treatment.(1) It is a common and significant disorder of women.”
BackgroundSelf-citationChronic pelvic pain and endometriosis: translational evidence of the relationship and implications
Stratton, P., & Berkley, K. J. (2011) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmq050 · Cited by 442
“CPP often debilitates women with endometriosis for years (Sinaii et al., 2007), has a high risk of emergency department visits (Gao et al., 2006), and is associated with time lost from work and significant physical and social debility (Simoens et al., 2007).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- HOWARD, F. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- HOWARD, FRED M.
- Venue
- Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey
- Published
- 1993-06
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 357-387
- ISSN
- 0029-7828 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131501232
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 6.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (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 › Surgery › Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
- Keywords
- chronic pelvic pain, diagnostic laparoscopy, laparoscopic surgery, endometriosis, pelvic adhesions, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, ovarian cysts, ovarian remnant syndrome, hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, adolescents
- MeSH terms
- Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, Chronic Disease, Endometriosis, Female, Genital Diseases, Female, Genital Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Ovarian Cysts, Pain, Pain Measurement, Postoperative Pain, Pelvis, Laparoscopy, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies
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