Endometriosis

Background Numerous studies concerning endometriosis and pain have been reported. However, there is no consensus on the best method to evaluate pain in endometriosis and many scales have been used. Moreover, there are only a few descriptions of minimal clinically important differences after treatment (MCID) to evaluate variations in pain. In our study, we aim to identify pain scales used in endometriosis pain treatment, to address their strong and weak points and to define which would be the ideal scale to help clinicians and researchers to evaluate endometriosis-related pain. Methods A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English, French or Portuguese from 1980 to December 2012, for the words: endometriosis, treatment, pain. Studies were selected if they studied an endometriosis treatment and a pain scale was specified. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed to define strong and weak points of each scale (systematic registration number: CRD42013005336). Results A total of 736 publications were identified. After excluding duplications and applying inclusion criteria 258 studies remained. We found that the visual analog scale (VAS) is the most frequently used scale. Both VAS and the numerical rating scale (NRS) show a good balance between strong and weak points in comparison with others such as the Biberoglu and Behrman scale. Concerning MCID, only VAS, NRS and Brief Pain Inventory scales have reported MCID and, among these, only VAS MCID has been studied in endometriosis patients (VAS MCID = 10 mm). Adding the Clinical Global Impression score (CGI) to the pain scale allows calculation of the MCID. Conclusions When using pain scales their strengths and weaknesses must be known and included in the analysis. VAS is the most frequently used pain scale and, together with NRS, seems the best adapted for endometriosis pain measurement. The use of VAS or NRS for each type of typical pain related to endometriosis (dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia and non-menstrual chronic pelvic pain), combined with the CGI and a quality-of-life scale will provide both clinicians and researchers with tools to evaluate treatment response.

Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale?

OBJECTIVE
This study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and complications of laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection for endometriosis and its efficacy on gynecologic and digestive symptoms.


STUDY DESIGN
After magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonographic evaluation of symptomatic colorectal endometriosis, 40 consecutive women requiring colorectal resection were included in this study. Symptom questionnaires were completed before and after the procedure. Perioperative complications and linear intensity scores for several gynecologic and digestive symptoms were recorded.


RESULTS
Thirty-six women (90%) underwent laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection and 4 required laparoconversion. Major complications occurred in 4 cases (10%), including 3 rectovaginal fistulae and 1 pelvic abscess. Transient urinary dysfunction occurred in 7 women (17.5%). Median follow-up after colorectal resection was 15 months (3-22 months). Median overall preoperative and postoperative pain scores were 8 +/- 1 (range 4-10) and 2 +/- 2 (0-10), respectively ( P < .0001). Nonmenstrual pelvic pain ( P = .0001), dysmenorrhea ( P < .0001), dyspareunia ( P = .0001), and pain on defecation ( P < .0005) were improved by colorectal resection. Lower back pain and asthenia were not improved.


CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection for endometriosis is feasible but carries a risk of major postoperative complications. Colorectal resection improved gynecologic and digestive symptoms, and the overall pain score.

Iconographies supplémentaires de l'article : Feasibility and clinical outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection for endometriosis

Background
Endometriosis is the presence in inappropriate sites of tissue that normally lines the uterus It can cause pain and subfertility Different treatments for endometriosis are available, one of which is laparoscopic ('key hole') surgery, performed to remove visible areas of endometriosis Cochrane review authors assessed the evidence on the use of laparoscopic surgery to treat pain and fertility problems in women with endometriosis Laparoscopic surgical techniques include ablation, which means destruction of a lesion (for example by burning), and excision, which means cutting a lesion out
Study characteristics
We included 10 randomised controlled trials (involving 973 participants) They were conducted in Australia, Canada, Egypt, Iran and the United Kingdom Most compared laparoscopic ablation or excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only Four of the 10 studies reported their source of funding The evidence was current to July 2013
Key results
We found that laparoscopic surgery may be of benefit in treating overall pain and subfertility associated with mild to moderate endometriosis Laparoscopic excision and ablation were similarly effective in relieving pain, although this result came from a single study There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

Two surgical approaches are usually employed in the treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum (DIER): colorectal resection removing the rectal segment affected by the disease, and nodule excision either without opening the rectum (shaving) or by removing the nodule along with the surrounding rectal wall (full thickness or disc excision). Although the present available data are from retrospective series reported by surgeons who generally perform only one technique, there is no evidence to support the risk of recurrences as a valid argument in favour of colorectal resection over rectal nodule excision. The advantage of a lower morbidity associated with nodule excision is not necessarily at the cost of an increased rate of pain recurrences, especially in women benefiting from post-operative medical treatment. The symptom-guided surgical approach in DIER primarily focuses on the relief of digestive symptoms and pelvic pains, rather than on mandatory 'carcinologic' resection of lesions. In addition, the risk of new post-operative unpleasant symptoms as a result of a compulsory and systematic excision of all endometriotic foci may be avoided. In a majority of cases, pelvic anatomy and digestive function can be restored by shaving or disc excision, as well as by colorectal resection; thus digestive complaints can be resolved even when the rectum is conserved. The most accurate evaluation of the results of DIER surgery should be provided by post-operative evolution in digestive function. Even though quality of life is improved for the majority of patients managed by colorectal resection, the question is whether or not a greater health improvement can be achieved by performing nodule excision, which avoids various post-operative and functional digestive complications. In addition, continuous medical treatment leads to a decrease in endometriotic nodules and prevents post-operative pain recurrences. Instead of choosing between medical and surgical management in the treatment of DIER, it is most likely that the two therapies should be associated.

Surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum: pleading for a symptom-guided approach

Objective:We report the first randomized trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open colorectal resection for endometriosis focusing on perioperative complications, improvement in symptoms, quality of life, and fertility.Summary of Background Data:Bowel endometriosis is one of the most severe for

Catherine Frey

Papers

Randomized trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open colorectal resection for endometriosis: morbidity, symptoms, quality of life, and fertility.