4.5 Review

Recurrence after Surgery for Colorectal Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 441-+

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.791

Keywords

Shaving; Disc excision; Segmental resection; Reappearance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The recurrence rate after colorectal surgery for endometriosis is up to 50% at 5 years. The aim of the current review and meta-analysis was to assess recurrence associated with shaving, disc excision, and segmental resection for endometriosis with colorectal involvement. Data Sources: A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for publications before February 28, 2019, using the terms colorectal endometriosis and recurrence in English. The outcome measure was histologically proven recurrence 1 year after the index surgery. Methods of Study Selection: Studies rated as good or fair by a study quality assessment tool were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the studies; discrepancies were discussed, and if a consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was consulted. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Of 156 relevant published trials, 41 were systematically reviewed and 4 were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of recurrence was higher after rectal shaving than after both segmental resection (odds ratio [OR], 5.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.33-13.12; I-2 = 0%; p = .001) and disc excision for histologically proven recurrence (OR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.33-11.05; I-2 = 0%; p = .01). This difference was not significant when comparing disc excision with segmental resection (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 0.8-8.65; I-2 = 0%; p = .11). Conclusion: The current analysis shows that the risk of recurrence is lower when segmental resection or disc excision is performed than when rectal shaving is performed. This finding is important when deciding the most appropriate surgical management. (C) 2019 AAGL. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available