[Nerve sparing techniques in deep endometriosis surgery to prevent urinary or digestive functional disorders: Techniques and results: CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic nerve-sparing modified radical hysterectomy for deep endometriosis

PURPOSE

Drug resistance and severe pelvic pain often warrant surgical intervention for treating deep endometriosis (DE); however, damage to the autonomic nervous system can occur because of anatomical considerations. We aimed to investigate the advantages of robotic technology in enabling precise dissection, even in DE.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted (RA) and conventional laparoscopic (CL) nerve-sparing modified radical hysterectomies (NSmRHs) for DE.

RESULTS

Between the two groups (RA-NSmRH group, n = 50; CL-NSmRH group, n = 18), no differences were identified based on patient demographics, such as age, body mass index, previous surgery, revised American Society of Reproductive Medicine classification, Enzian classification, uterine weight, number of removed DE lesions, and concomitant procedures. All patients in both groups achieved complete removal of the DE lesions with complete bilateral pelvic autonomic nerve preservation. The mean operative time (OT) was significantly longer (130 ± 46 vs. 98 ± 22 min, p < 0.01), and estimated blood loss (EBL) was lower (35 ± 44 vs. 131 ± 49 ml, p < 0.01) in the RA-NSmRH group than in the CL-NSmRH group. The hospitalization days (4.3 ± 1.3 vs. 4.1 ± 0.2 days, p = 0.45) and perioperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ grade III (0% vs. 0%) were not significant in both the groups. None of the patients required self-catheterization after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Compared with CL-NSmRH, RA-NSmRH was associated with longer OT and lower EBL, whereas the number of hospitalization days and complications were similar in both groups. Our results imply that nerve-sparing surgery can be safely and reproducibly performed using conventional or robotic laparoscopic modalities to treat DE.

Nerve-sparing surgery in deep endometriosis: Has its time come?

Nerve-sparing (NS) surgery was first introduced for the treatment of deep endometriosis (DE) 20 years ago, drawing on established neuroanatomy and success from oncological applications. It aims to identify and preserve autonomic nerve fibres, reduce iatrogenic nerve injury, and minimize postoperative visceral dysfunction, without compromising the therapeutic effectiveness against endometriosis. The evolution of NS surgical techniques over the past two decades has been supported by an expanding body of literature on anatomical details, dissection techniques, and functional outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that NS surgery results in reduced postoperative voiding dysfunction (POVD). Transient POVD may be influenced by preoperative dysfunction, with parametrial infiltration being a strong predictive factor for POVD. While the benefits in bowel and sexual functions are less pronounced and consistent, NS surgery potentially prevents de novo dysfunctions in these areas. Furthermore, perioperative complication rates, effectiveness in pain relief, and fertility outcomes are reportedly on par with conventional surgery.

Endometriosis Resection Using Nerve Sparing Versus Non-nerve Sparing Surgical Techniques

Introduction

Endometriosis is the condition in which there are ectopic endometrial tissues outside the uterine cavity. The use of nerve sparing technique has been well established in the field of oncology, leading to better quality of life following radical oncologic procedures without compromising on the long-term survival. The objective of this study is to compare the quality of life in terms of sexual function and urinary function in women undergoing nerve sparing surgeries for endometriosis and those undergoing non-nerve sparing surgeries.

Material and Methods

Data of 51 patients operated for endometriosis at Galaxy Care Laparoscopic Institute, Pune, India between 1st January 2020 till 31st December 2020 were collected and analysed. We included patients in age group between 38 and 44 years in monogamous relationship, with moderate to severe endometriosis (Revised American Society of Reproductive Medicine r-ASRM score of 16 and above 5), being operated for hysterectomy along with ureterolysis and/or bowel resection (including shaving of rectal endometriosis, discoid resection, segmental resection), and excision of large ovarian endometriomas (> 3 cm size) with cul-de-sac obliteration.

Results

The patients were evaluated for the following factors: age, parity, nature of surgery done, immediate intraoperative complications (bowel injury, bladder injury, ureteric injury), operative time in minutes, average blood loss, length of hospital stay, days to removal of foley's catheter and postoperative urinary and sexual function which were assessed on follow up visit and a 1-year follow up interview. We found that the urinary and sexual function in the group undergoing nerve sparing surgeries was significantly better than the patients undergoing non-nerve sparing surgeries.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic nerve sparing approach for clearance of endometriosis has allowed better quality of life post surgery. Proper understanding and demonstration of pelvic neuroanatomy has made this approach feasible and achievable in carefully selected patients.

Six-month follow-up of minimally invasive nerve-sparing complete excision of endometriosis: What about dyspareunia?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess individual changes of deep dyspareunia (DDyspareunia) six months after laparoscopic nerve-sparing complete excision of endometriosis, with or without robotic assistance.

METHODS

This preplanned interdisciplinary observational study with a retrospective analysis of intervention enrolled 126 consecutive women who underwent surgery between January 2018 and September 2019 at a private specialized center. Demographics, medical history and surgery details were recorded systematically. DDyspareunia (primary outcome), dysmenorrhea and acyclic pelvic pain were assessed on self-reported 11-point numeric rating scales both preoperatively and at six-month follow-up. Cases with poor prognosis in relation to dyspareunia were described individually in greater detail.

RESULTS

Preoperative DDyspareunia showed weak correlation with dysmenorrhea (rho = .240; P = .014) and pelvic pain (rho = .260; P = .004). Although DDyspareunia improved significantly (P < .001) by 3 points or more in 75.8% (95%CI: 64.7-86.2) and disappeared totally in 59.7% of cases (95%CI:47.8-71.6), individual analysis identified different patterns of response. The probability of a preoperative moderate/severe DDyspareunia worsening more than 2 points was 4.8% (95%CI: 0.0-10.7) and the probability of a woman with no DDyspareunia developing "de novo" moderate or severe DDyspareunia was 7.7% (95%CI: 1.8-15.8) and 5.8% (95%CI: 0.0-13.0), respectively. In a qualitative analysis, several conditions were hypothesized to impact the post-operative DDyspareunia response; these included adenomyosis, mental health disorders, lack of hormone therapy after surgery, colporrhaphy, nodule excision in ENZIAN B compartment (uterosacral ligament/parametrium), the rectovaginal septum or the retrocervical region.

CONCLUSION

Endometriosis surgery provides significant improvement in DDyspareunia. However, patients should be alerted about the possibility of unsatisfactory results.

Working group of ESGE, ESHRE, and WES, Keckstein J, Becker CM, Canis M, Feki A, Grimbizis GF, Hummelshoj L, Nisolle M, Roman H, Saridogan E, Tanos V, Tomassetti C, Ulrich UA, Vermeulen N, De Wilde RL. Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis. Part 2: deep endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION

How should surgery for endometriosis be performed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This document provides recommendations covering technical aspects of different methods of surgery for deep endometriosis in women of reproductive age.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometriosis is highly prevalent and often associated with severe symptoms. Yet compared to equally prevalent conditions, it is poorly understood and a challenge to manage. Previously published guidelines have provided recommendations for (surgical) treatment of deep endometriosis, based on the best available evidence, but without technical information and details on how to best perform such treatment in order to be effective and safe.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A working group of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), ESHRE and the World Endometriosis Society (WES) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of surgery for treatment of deep endometriosis.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

This document focused on surgery for deep endometriosis and is complementary to a previous document in this series focusing on endometrioma surgery.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The document presents general recommendations for surgery for deep endometriosis, starting from preoperative assessments and first steps of surgery. Different approaches for surgical treatment are discussed and are respective of location and extent of disease; uterosacral ligaments and rectovaginal septum with or without involvement of the rectum, urinary tract or extrapelvic endometriosis. In addition, recommendations are provided on the treatment of frozen pelvis and on hysterectomy as a treatment for deep endometriosis.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Owing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical expertise. Where available, references of relevant studies were added.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations complement previous guidelines on management of endometriosis and the recommendations for surgical treatment of ovarian endometrioma.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The meetings of the working group were funded by ESGE, ESHRE and WES. Dr Roman reports personal fees from ETHICON, PLASMASURGICAL, OLYMPUS and NORDIC PHARMA, outside the submitted work; Dr Becker reports grants from Bayer AG, Volition Rx, MDNA Life Sciences and Roche Diagnostics Inc. and other relationships or activities from AbbVie Inc., and Myriad Inc, during the conduct of the study; Dr Tomassetti reports non-financial support from ESHRE, during the conduct of the study; and non-financial support and other were from Lumenis, Gedeon-Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck SA, outside the submitted work. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

na.