Association Rate between Incisional and Pelvic Endometriosis
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the association rate between abdominal wall and pelvic endometriosis in a population of Iranian patients, in University and private hospitals of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Methods: 30 women were diagnosed as abdominal wall endometriosis according to the clinical signs and symptoms (dysmenorrhea, dyspauronia and pelvic pain) and the sonographic findings. The mean age of the patients was 30.5 ±3.3 (range 21–35) years. All the patients underwent resection of abdominal wall mass and investigation of the pelvic cavity for detecting pelvic endometriosis by laparoscopy. The pelvic endometriosis was scored and the stage was determined. Results: 28 (93.3%) patients were found to have concomitant pelvic endometriosis. The mean score of pelvic endometriosis was 9.3 ± 6.6 (range 3–33). Of the patients, 10 (33.3%) suffered from stage I endometriosis, 16 (53.3%) from stage II, and 2 (6.7%) from stage III. Only 2 (6.7%) patients did not have concomitant pelvic endometriosis. The abdominal wall mass was successfully excised in all the cases. The histopathology diagnosis was confirmed in all the cases. Conclusions: The association rate between abdominal wall and pelvic endometriosis is higher than that previously reported, up to 90%. Thus, routine investigation of the pelvic cavity is recommended in all the patients with abdominal wall endometriosis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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 a study by Alborzi et al., laparoscopic exploration after resection of abdominal wall masses in 30 patients with AWE revealed that 28 (93.3%) also had pelvic endometriosis.
“In a study by Alborzi et al. [20], laparoscopic exploration was performed after resection of abdominal wall masses in 30 patients with AWE, revealing that 28 (93.3 %) also had pelvic endometriosis.”
From Umbilical port-site endometriosis: a case presentation and narrative review of the literature (2026) · cites this paper as [20]
In a study by Alborzi et al, laparoscopic exploration after resection of abdominal wall mass in 30 AWE patients found that 28 (93.3%) patients had pelvic endometriosis.
“However, in a study conducted by Alborzi et al[14], who performed laparoscopic exploration after resection of abdominal wall mass in 30 AWE patients, it was found that 28 (93.3%) patients had pelvic endometriosis.”
From Laparoscopic umbilical trocar port site endometriosis: A case report (2020) · cites this paper as [14]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 2
- Authors
- Alborzi, S., Hamedi, B., Abbasi, S., Parsanejad, M. E., & Zolghadri, J.
- Affiliations
- Shiraz University (IR)
- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Laparoscopy Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz - Iran
- Corresponding author
- Alborzi, Saeed
- ORCID
- Alborzi, Saeed
- Venue
- Journal of Endometriosis
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 183-187
- ISSN
- 2035-9969 (ISSN-L)
- 2036-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2288171897
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders (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
- abdominal wall endometriosis, pelvic endometriosis, endometriosis staging, Iranian women
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