4.5 Review

Laparoscopic excision of rectovaginal endometriosis: report of a prospective study and review of the literature

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 1105-1112

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01993.x

关键词

Rectovaginal; endometriosis; laparoscopic; segmental; resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim The surgical management of rectovaginal endometriosis is challenging. We present our experience of the laparoscopic management of these difficult cases, together with a review of the current literature. Method A prospective database was established for all patients undergoing surgery for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis (DIE) with rectovaginal and/or ureteric and bladder nodules. Outcomes analysed include operation performed, conversion and complication rates, and length of stay. These outcomes were compared with other laparoscopic rectal resections for alternative diagnoses recorded in the database and with outcomes seen in a literature review of studies on the surgical management of endometriosis. Results Between April 2004 and November 2007, 54 patients underwent laparoscopic excision of rectovaginal endometriosis by a combined colorectal and gynaecological surgical team. Out of the 54 patients, 37% of patients underwent a rectal wall shave, 13% had a disc excision of the rectal wall, and 50% underwent segmental resection. There was a conversion rate of 4%, median duration of stay was 3 days, with 2% requiring transfusion. Major complications occurred in 7% of patients, with 4% requiring reoperation. Patients undergoing segmental resection for endometriosis had a higher complication rate than those having surgery for other diagnoses. There was an increased incidence of anastomotic stenosis, with histopathological results suggesting that the disease process might have contributed to this occurrence. Conclusions Laparoscopic resection of rectovaginal endometriosis may be associated with a higher incidence of complications than resections performed for other diagnoses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据