CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Endometriosis Research and TreatmentGynecological conditions and treatmentsIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions

Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: Two Case Reports and Literature Review

Open access
Doroftei, Bogdan, Armeanu, Theodora, Maftei, Radu, Ilie, Ovidiu-Dumitru, Dabuleanu, Ana-Maria, Condac, Constantin·2020·Medicina
DOI 10.3390/medicina56120727PMC PMC7767517
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background and objectives: Abdominal wall endometriosis, also known as scar endometriosis, is a rare condition that is becoming increasingly common. The recent rise in incidence is attributed primarily to the surge of cesarean births, figures that could be influenced in a positive manner considering the improvements brought towards the ultrasound diagnostic methods that have been made in recent years. Materials and Methods: Here we report the cases of two Caucasian women of 38- (G2P2) and 36-years old (G1P1), both subjected to an ultrasound examination due to a specific symptomatic panel reported during anamnesis. Independently of the current status, in the first patient, there were no reported symptom-specific associations with endometriosis, but she had a known history of mild hereditary thrombophilia; the second woman suffered from two conditions positively associated with endometriosis. Results: In both cases, abnormal structures were revealed, with the diagnostic(s) of endometriosis being histologically confirmed based on a set of features observed during the investigation. Conclusions: This paper aims to highlight the importance of reducing cesarean births and to consider the diagnosis of scar endometriosis in women with a history of obstetric or gynaecological surgeries who present with cyclic, recurrent abdominal pain.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper reports two cases of abdominal wall (scar) endometriosis after cesarean delivery, both evaluated with ultrasound and confirmed histologically after surgical excision. It also reviews the literature on diagnosis, imaging, and treatment, emphasizing that scar endometriosis should be suspected in women with cyclic abdominal pain and a history of obstetric or gynecological surgery.

Key findings

  • Scar endometriosis is rare but increasing, with an incidence of 0.03–1% in women with a history of cesarean births; the reported interval from surgery to symptom onset ranges from 6 months to 10 years.
  • Both patients had painful, palpable masses at the cesarean scar: a 2–3 cm mass in a 38-year-old G2P2 woman and a ~3 cm mass in a 36-year-old G1P1 woman; diagnosis was delayed around 2–3 years in their cases.
  • Ultrasound findings included hypoechoic, heterogeneous, ill-defined masses in the subcutaneous fat, with some abdominal muscle infiltration; histology showed glandular components, endometrial-like stroma, hemosiderin deposits, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate, and fibrosis.
  • Treatment is wide surgical excision with a minimum 1 cm safe margin; incomplete excision carries a recurrence risk of 12.5–28.6%, and ultrasound 3 months after surgery showed no residual or recurrent lesions in these cases.

Methods

  • Two case reports of Caucasian women aged 38 (G2P2) and 36 (G1P1) with prior cesarean sections who presented with cyclic pain and palpable scar masses.
  • Preoperative evaluation used 2D and Doppler ultrasound; in the second case, endovaginal and transabdominal ultrasound also assessed pelvic endometriosis findings.
  • Diagnosis was confirmed microscopically after surgical excision, and the paper includes a narrative literature review of imaging and management strategies.

Limitations

  • The paper states that management remains controversial, that evidence is limited because of the relatively low incidence of abdominal wall endometriosis, and that no national or international guidelines exist for optimal uterine closure technique.
  • The paper states that the postoperative monitoring interval is not clearly defined and that it is unknown why some cases invade deeply while most are limited to the abdominal aponeurosis.
  • Evident from the text: the primary evidence is only two cases, the literature review is narrative rather than systematic, and follow-up after surgery is reported only at 3 months.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/medicina56120727

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In our cases, ultrasound evaluation 3 months after surgery shows no signs of residual or recidivant lesions.

    “In our cases, ultrasound evaluation 3 months after surgery shows no signs of residual or recidivant lesions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    In cases of incomplete excision of scar endometriosis, the risk of recurrence varies between 12.5-28.6%.

    “In cases of incomplete excision of the lesion, the risk of recurrence varies between 12.5–28.6% [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Fatnassi, 2015, Parietal Endometriosis a Caesarian Section Complication, EC Gynaecol.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Ultrasound may be useful for preoperative diagnosis and evaluation of invasion into subjacent anatomical planes in scar endometriosis.

    “The ultrasound may be useful for preoperative diagnosis and evaluation of invasion into the subjacent anatomical planes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Burney, 2012, Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of endometriosis, Fertil. Steril. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The time between surgery and onset of scar endometriosis can range from 6 months up to 10 years, based on data from case reports.

    “Data from case reports show that the time frame can range from 6 months up to 10 years [12].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Koger, 1993, Surgical scar endometrioma, Surg. Gynecol. Obstet.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    High-frequency linear transducers are best for ultrasound assessment of scar endometriosis.

    “High-frequency linear transducers are best for such assessment [13].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Rezvani, 2015, The role of multimodality imaging after cesarean delivery, Ultrasound Q. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In both reported cases, abnormal structures were revealed and the diagnosis of endometriosis was histologically confirmed.

    “In both cases, abnormal structures were revealed, with the diagnostic(s) of endometriosis being histologically confirmed based on a set of features observed during the investigation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In our cases, the diagnosis was delayed around 2-3 years even though in the first case the pain appeared 3 months after C-section.

    “In our cases, the diagnosis was delayed around 2–3 years even if in the first case the pain has appeared 3 months after C-section.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Case 2: Endovaginal ultrasound found a nodular, 25/26 mm mass with imprecise margins, diffuse Doppler signal, intramyometrial varicose veins, sliding sign absent posteriorly and present anteriorly; the right ovary was adherent to the posterolateral wall of the uterus and sensitive upon mobilization; the left ovary was adherent to the posterior wall of the uterus and left uterosacral ligament, with

    “Upon the endovaginal ultrasound examination of the posterior wall of the uterus, we found a nodular, 25/26 mm mass with imprecise margins, diffuse Doppler signal, intramyometrial varicose veins, sliding sign absent posteriorly and present anteriorly. The right ovary, sized 35 mm/24 mm/13 mm, was adherent to the posterolateral wall of the uterus and sensitive upon mobilization with the probe. The”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Case 1: The patient described her pain as relatively cyclic and timed the onset of symptoms at 3 months after her last C-section.

    “The patient described her pain as relatively cyclic and timed the onset of the symptoms at 3 months after her last C-section.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Case 2: A 36-year-old Caucasian woman, G1P1, with one birth by caesarean section two years prior, presented with cyclic pain on the C-section scar, moderate to severe dysmenorrhoea and dyspareunia, and a painful, palpable, small firm mass of ~3 cm in the lower abdominal wall at the site of the caesarean section scar.

    “A 36-year-old Caucasian woman, G1P1 (one birth by caesarean section two years prior, in 2016), presented complaining of cyclic pain on the C-section scar, as well as of moderate to severe dysmenorrhoea and dyspareunia, two symptoms well known to be associated with endometriosis. She also pointed to a painful, palpable, small firm mass of ~3 cm in the lower abdomen wall, at the site of the caesarea”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Case 2: Surgical excision was difficult due to invasion and lack of cleavage planes.

    “Surgical excision was difficult due to invasion and lack of cleavage plans.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Case 2: The patient had a history of ovarian endometrioma of ~6 cm removed by laparoscopy in 2014.

    “This patient had a history of ovarian endometrioma of ~6 cm removed by laparoscopy in 2014.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Case 2: The nodule section revealed a typical aspect and the histologic exam confirmed the diagnosis.

    “The nodule section revealed a typical aspect (Figure 4), and the histologic exam confirmed the diagnosis (Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Case 1: A 38-year-old Caucasian woman with history of two caesarean sections presented with a painful, palpable, small, firm mass of approximately 2 to 3 cm in the lower abdominal wall at the site of the caesarean section scar, with no mobility to deeper anatomical planes.

    “A 38-year-old Caucasian woman with a history of two caesarean sections (G2P2), the last of which was in November 2015), presented to our outpatient department with complaints of a painful, palpable, small, firm mass of approximately 2 to 3 cm, located in the lower abdomen wall, at the site of the caesarean section scar, with no mobility to the deeper anatomical planes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Case 1: Ultrasound revealed an irregular, heterogeneous, hypoechoic, oblong solid mass with ill-defined margins, located within the subcutaneous fat, with some infiltration in the abdominal muscle but no mobility to deeper anatomical planes.

    “The ultrasound revealed an irregular, heterogeneous, hypoechoic, oblong solid mass with ill-defined margins, located within the subcutaneous fat, with some infiltration in the abdominal muscle but no mobility to the deeper anatomical planes (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In both cases, the excised specimen was microscopically described as connective-muscle-fat tissue with glandular components and endometrial-like stroma, with intra- and extracellular hemosiderin deposits, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate, and fibrosis, and the presumed diagnosis of parietal endometriosis was histologically confirmed.

    “The excised specimen in both cases was microscopically described as the following: fragment of connective-muscle-fat tissue with glandular components and endometrial-like stroma, with intra- and extracellular hemosiderin deposits, lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate, and fibrosis. Therefore, the presumed diagnosis of parietal endometriosis was histologically confirmed (Figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Case 2: Transabdominal ultrasound revealed a heterogeneous, hypoechoic solid mass with a polylobulated aspect and ill-defined margins, located in the subcutaneous fat near the C-section scar, with scattered internal echoes and absent Doppler signal.

    “Transabdominal ultrasound revealed a heterogeneous, hypoechoic solid mass with a polylobulated aspect and ill-defined margins, located in the subcutaneous fat near the C-section scar. The mass had some scattered internal echoes and absent Doppler signal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Scar endometriosis typically occurs after gynecological or obstetric procedures such as caesarean sections, laparoscopic procedures requiring uterine cavity manipulation, needle tract amniocenteses, or perineal episiotomies.

    “Scar endometriosis is a rare form of endometriosis that typically occurs after gynecological or obstetric procedures such as caesarean sections, various laparoscopic procedures that require uterine cavity manipulation, needle tract amniocenteses, or perineal episiotomies [7,8,9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [7] Ramdani, 2020, Parietal mass: Two case reports of rare cesarean scar endometriosis, Cureus

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Patterson, 1999, Abdominal wall endometriomas: Report of eight cases, Am. Surg. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Blanco, 2003, Abdominal wall endometriomas, Am. J. Surg. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The most widely accepted hypothesis for the pathogenesis of scar endometriosis is that endometrial cells are directly implanted via an iatrogenic process.

    “Regarding the pathogenesis of scar endometriosis, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that the endometrial cells are directly implanted via an iatrogenic process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Uzunçakmak, C., Güldaş, A., Ozçam, H., and Dinç, K. (2013). Scar endometriosis: A case report of this uncommon entity and review of the literature. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol., 386783. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Total surgical excision is considered the gold standard for both diagnosis and treatment of abdominal wall endometriosis.

    “For abdominal wall endometriosis, total surgical excision is considered to be the gold standard for both diagnosis and treatment [45].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [45] Sengul, 2009, Incisional endometriosis: A report of 3 cases, Can. J. Surg.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scar endometriosis is a challenging diagnosis to establish because it is reached by exclusion rather than as a positive diagnosis process, due to non-specificity of symptoms such as cyclic abdominal pain, swelling, or bruising of the scar post-surgery.

    “Scar endometriosis is a challenging diagnosis to establish because it is reached rather by exclusion than as a positive diagnosis process. This is due to the non-specificity of symptoms such as cyclic abdominal pain, swelling, or bruising of the scar post-surgery.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Burney, 2012, Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of endometriosis, Fertil. Steril. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Preoperative evaluation of invasion is very important because in case of large muscle invasion or deep invasion into omentum or bowel, participation of a general surgeon is necessary.

    “Preoperative evaluation of invasion is very important because, in case of large muscle invasion or deep invasion into the omentum or bowel, the participation of a general surgeon is necessary, with all the logistical implications [4].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Burney, 2012, Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of endometriosis, Fertil. Steril. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The diagnosis of scar endometriosis is usually delayed because signs and symptoms are not specific, and cyclic abdominal pain is not a pathognomonic sign.

    “The diagnosis is usually delayed because the signs and symptoms are not specific, and cyclic abdominal pain is not a pathognomonic sign for scar endometriosis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    There are situations when surgery can be avoided, especially in cases of endometriomas or recurrent endometriomas that can be medically managed.

    “There are situations when surgery can be avoided, especially in cases of endometriomas or recurrent endometriomas that can be medically managed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Delayed diagnosis of scar endometriosis can cause the patient to undergo complex and invasive surgical procedures, which may significantly impact quality of life.

    “Among the various complications, delayed diagnosis can cause the patient to have to undergo complex and invasive surgical procedures, which may significantly impact their quality of life.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The variable time between surgery and symptoms, the rarity of the disease, and similarities with other diseases determine a delayed diagnosis.

    “The variable time between surgery and symptoms, the fact that this disease is rare, and similarities with other diseases determine a delayed diagnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The gold standard treatment for abdominal wall endometriosis is surgical excision of the mass within safe margins, which also allows histopathological analysis to confirm the diagnosis.

    “The gold standard treatment in such cases is surgical, consisting of the excision of the mass within safe margins. This also allows for the specimen to be histopathologically analyzed to confirm the diagnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scar endometriosis is an entirely iatrogenic disease with an incidence of 0.03-1% in women with a history of caesarean births.

    “Scar endometriosis is an entirely iatrogenic disease with an incidence of 0.03–1% in women with a history of caesarean births [11].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Bergqvist, 1993, Different types of extragenital endometriosis: A review, Gynecol. Endocrinol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The best way to prevent scar endometriosis is to avoid contamination with endometrial cells.

    “The best way to prevent scar endometriosis is to avoid contamination with endometrial cells.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    Because of the relatively low incidence of abdominal wall endometriosis, there is a relatively small body of evidence in the current literature.

    “Because of the relatively low incidence of abdominal wall endometriosis, there is a relatively small body of evidence in the current literature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
25 of 25

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Abdominal wall endometriosis is becoming increasingly common, primarily due to the surge in cesarean births.

    “The recent rise in incidence is attributed primarily to the surge of cesarean births”
    “Scar endometriosis is, unfortunately, a disease with increasing incidence due to the rising rate of births by caesarean section”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scar endometriosis typically appears on ultrasound as a round or oval lesion with imprecise borders, a hypoechoic area surrounded by a hyperechoic ring, with low or absent blood flow in Doppler mode.

    “Upon ultrasound, a round or oval lesion with imprecise borders can be found at the site of the scar. The lesion typically appears as a hypoechoic area surrounded by a hyperechoic ring, with low or even absent blood flow when viewed in Doppler mode.”
2 of 2

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?

  • Needle biopsy carries a theoretical risk of seeding endometrial cells along the needle path.

    “Although needle biopsy is a useful diagnostic tool, its role is still debated because, although it may help confirm the diagnosis, it also carries a theoretical risk of seeding endometrial cells along the needle path [35].”

    From Surgical Reconstruction of Abdominal Wall Endometriosis Post-Cesarean Section: A Monocentric Experience of a Rare Pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Introduction describes direct iatrogenic implantation of endometrial cells as the leading hypothesis for scar endometriosis and lists needle-tract amniocentesis among procedures after which it can occur. The Discussion also recommends avoiding contamination with endometrial cells. These passages support a theoretical needle-tract seeding mechanism, but the paper does not specifically identify needle biopsy as carrying that risk. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • CS is responsible for 57-92% of AWE cases.

    “Studies reveal that CS is responsible for 57–92% of AWE cases [3,5,23,26,32,33,34,35,36,37].”

    From Surgical Reconstruction of Abdominal Wall Endometriosis Post-Cesarean Section: A Monocentric Experience of a Rare Pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Introduction says scar endometriosis typically occurs after procedures including caesarean sections, and the Discussion links its increasing incidence to rising caesarean-birth rates. Neither section gives the claimed 57–92% share of abdominal wall endometriosis cases; the Discussion’s 0.03–1% figure instead concerns incidence among women with a history of caesarean birth. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Key differentials for AWE include granuloma, fibromatosis, soft-tissue tumors, lipoma, hematoma, sebaceous cyst, incision hernia, and lymphoma.

    “Key differentials for AWE include granuloma, fibromatosis, soft-tissue tumors, lipoma, hematoma, sebaceous cyst, incision hernia, and lymphoma [22].”

    From Abdominal wall endometriosis in a cesarean scar: a case report (2025) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Discussion (page not provided) lists granuloma, desmoid tumor, lipoma, sebaceous cysts, and ventral hernias as differentials; desmoid tumor and ventral hernia correspond to the claim’s fibromatosis and incision hernia. It does not list hematoma or lymphoma, and its reference to desmoid tumor does not establish soft-tissue tumors generally as a differential. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Wide excision with at least 1 cm safety margin is recommended to avoid recurrence.

    “Doroftei et al. recommend wide excision of the lesion with at least a 1 cm safety margin to avoid recurrence [35].”

    From Surgical Reconstruction of Abdominal Wall Endometriosis Post-Cesarean Section: A Monocentric Experience of a Rare Pathology (2025) · cites this paper as [35]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • MRI-study subgroups exceed the stated total

    Minor

    If 65 of the 98 MRI studies had no further record, the remaining subgroup would contain 33, not 37.

    Reported 37 · recomputed 33

  • Cited dienogest review is attributed to a different author

    Minor

    The discussion attributes reference [23] to Bedaiwy et al., but the paper's reference [23] lists Murji et al. as its authors.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fatnassi, 2015, Parietal Endometriosis a Caesarian Section Complication, EC Gynaecol., 1, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Doroftei, B., Armeanu, T., Maftei, R., Ilie, O.-D., Dabuleanu, A.-M., & Condac, C.
Affiliations
  • Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy (RO)
  • Clinical Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology “Cuza Voda”, Cuza Voda Street, no 34, 700038 Iasi, Romania
  • Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (RO)
  • Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu (RO)
Corresponding author
  • Armeanu, Theodora
  • Ilie, Ovidiu-Dumitru
ORCID
Venue
Medicina
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-21
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
727
ISSN
  • 1010-660X (ISSN-L)
  • 1648-9144
DOI
10.3390/medicina56120727
PMC
PMC7767517
OpenAlex
W3114425595
Semantic Scholar
fa4028a00fb491e98b2909f8ded1dd9fc0736186
Cited by
15
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Medicina (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
abdominal wall endometriosis, scar endometriosis, cesarean section, inherited thrombophilia, cyclic abdominal pain, ultrasonography, postoperative endometriosis, histopathological confirmation
MeSH terms
Cesarean Section, Cicatrix, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Ultrasonography, Abdominal Wall

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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