Management of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum: Is a systematic temporary stoma relevant?

A Case of Rectal Endometriosis Misdiagnosed as Rectal Malignancy on Three Colonoscopies and Biopsies Sharing a Combined Literature Review

Background

Endometriosis involves the intestine, and its clinical manifestations are nonspecific and lack of etiological manifestations. The diagnosis is difficult, which often leads to misdiagnosis. We report a case of endometriosis which was misdiagnosed as intestinal malignant tumor after colonoscopy and three biopsies.

Case Presentation

We reported a 42-year-old woman who went to see a doctor because of anal distension. She was examined by three gastrointestinal endoscopists at different levels in different hospitals and underwent biopsy at the same time. Combined with clinical manifestations, imaging examination, endoscopic examination and pathological examination, she was misdiagnosed as intestinal malignant tumor, and partial intestinal resection was performed according to the surgical principle of malignant tumor.

Conclusion

Although there are advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy and imaging techniques, intestinal endometriosis is still easy to be misdiagnosed. As our case report shows, after three colonoscopy and biopsy, it is still misdiagnosed as intestinal malignant tumor. Further research is needed to improve the ability of preoperative diagnosis, which deserves the attention of gastroenterologists and obstetricians and gynecologists.

Evaluation of the SF-36 questionnaire for assessment of the quality of life of endometriosis patients undergoing treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Endometriosis has a negative influence on the physical, psychological, and social aspects of a patient's life; therefore, it affects the health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The current review aimed to investigate the efficiency of a 36-item generic questionnaire survey (SF-36) for patients with endometriosis who were undergoing medical or surgical treatment. A search strategy including the key words ‘endometriosis’, ‘quality of life’ (QOL), and ‘questionnaire SF-36’ was applied using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases in order to include articles that evaluated the QOL among women with endometriosis using the SF-36. Only articles that included interviews of patients both before and after surgical or medical endometriosis treatment or those articles that compared study groups were considered. The qualitative analysis was based on 37 articles, whereas the quantitative analysis utilized 14 articles. The research participants included 11,101 women, among whom 6,888 patients were diagnosed with endometriosis. The analysis recorded 17 studies dealing with all types of endometriosis, 9 studies dealing with deep infiltrative endometriosis (DIE), and 9 studies dealing with bowel endometriosis or DIE with bowel involvement. QOL was evaluated using only SF-36 in 12 studies that collectively included 1,912 women and using SF-36 in association with other questionnaires in 25 studies that collectively included 8,022 women. For patients with endometriosis, physical functioning [odds ratio (OR), 78.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 68.97-88.77; I²=98.77%; P≤0.001] was the most affected life parameter. This parameter showed the highest improvement after surgical intervention (OR, 63.39; 95% CI, 48.71-78.07; I²=97.65%; P≤0.001) or hormonal treatment (OR, 38.65; 95% CI, 14.39-62.91; I²=38.65%; P≤0.001). The 36-item survey generic questionnaire seems to be an efficient tool for assessment of the QOL of life of women with endometriosis who are undergoing surgical or medical treatment. It can be applied before and after the procedure, and it can also be used for comparing study groups.

Risk of Rectovaginal Fistula in Women with Excision of Deep Endometriosis Requiring Concomitant Vaginal and Rectal Sutures, with or without Preventive Stoma: A Before-and-after Comparative Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a liberal policy of preventive stoma (LPS) reduces the rate of rectovaginal fistulas in women with excision of deep endometriosis requiring concomitant vaginal and rectal sutures in comparison with a more restrictive policy of preventive stoma (RPS) and to assess the risk factors for rectovaginal fistula.

DESIGN

Retrospective before-and-after comparative study.

SETTING

Two referral centers, one with an LPS and the other with an RPS.

PATIENTS

A total of 363 patients with deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum and the vagina.

INTERVENTIONS

Rectal disc excision or colorectal resection concomitantly with vaginal excision.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred forty-one and 122 women received surgery at the LPS and RPS centers, respectively. The rate of preventive stomas was 71.4% at the LPS center (n = 172) and 30.3% at the RPS center (N = 37). Rectovaginal fistula was recorded in 31 cases (8.5%): nineteen women were managed at the LPS center, and 12 women underwent surgery at the RPS center. It occurred in, respectively, 9.4%, 10.8%, 10.1%, and 7% of the women managed without and with a stoma at the RPS center and of those managed without and with a stoma at the LPS center (p = .72). The height of the rectal stapled line was significantly lower in the women undergoing a stoma, particularly in those managed at the RPS center (5.4 ± 1.8 cm). Performing rectal sutures within 8 cm from the anal verge increased the risk of rectovaginal fistula more than 3-fold, independently of stoma creation, surgical procedure carried out on the rectum, size of vaginal infiltration, or associated excision of deep endometriosis involving the pelvic nerves (odds ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-9.1).

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the risk of rectovaginal fistula between women with rectovaginal endometriosis managed by either an LPS or an RPS; however, these findings need to be confirmed by a randomized trial.

Post-operative management and follow-up of surgical treatment in the case of rectovaginal and retrocervical endometriosis

Introduction

Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) affects between 3.8% and 37% of all endometriosis patients, mostly affecting rectovaginal septum or retrocervical space and characterized by the severe endometriosis-related complaints. Nowadays, generally managed with surgery. However, this is associated with a risk of postoperative complications. To better evaluate intra- and postoperative complications and outcomes for rectovaginal (RVE) and retrocervical endometriosis (RCE), the preoperative management should be accurately described and compared.

Methodology

This is a cohort retrospective study performed at the Endometriosis Centre of Charité-University Clinic, Berlin. 34 patients were investigated in their reproductive age, n = 19 with RVE and n = 15 RCE, operated between 2011 and 2015. The surgical approach was divergent in both groups. Single laparoscopy was performed in RCE patients (RCEP) and vaginal assisted laparoscopy in RVE patients (RVEP). Long-term postoperative outcome included complications, fertility rate and recurrence rate.

Results

The median follow-up time was three years (y). Symptom-free status was revealed in n = 12 RVEP and n = 9 RCEP. Postoperatively, endometriosis-related complaints were presented in n = 7 RVEP and n = 6 RCEP, but with significant pain relief. From n = 8 RVE patients seeking fertility, pregnancy occurred in n = 7 and from n = 9 RCEP pregnancy appeared in n = 5 patients in the meantime of 6 months. Postoperative complications were reported in n = 1 RVEP with early postoperative bleeding, after ureter leakage and n = 1 RCEP with postoperative anastomotic insufficiency. The postoperative recurrence rate was equivalent to zero.

Conclusion

The appropriate surgical approach for each group, preserving anatomy and functionality of the organs, seems to be very essential and efficient.

Avascular Spaces of the Female Pelvis-Clinical Applications in Obstetrics and Gynecology

The term "spaces" refers to the areas delimited by at least two independent fasciae and filled with areolar connective tissue. However, there is discrepancy regarding the spaces and their limits between clinical anatomy and gynecologic surgery, as not every avascular space described in literature is delimited by at least two fasciae. Moreover, new spaces and surgical planes have been developed after the adoption of laparoscopy and nerve-sparing gynecological procedures. Avascular spaces are useful anatomical landmarks in retroperitoneal anatomic and pelvic surgery for both malignant and benign conditions. A noteworthy fact is that for various gynecological diseases, there are different approaches to the avascular spaces of the female pelvis. This is a significant difference, which is best demonstrated by dissection of these spaces for gynecological, urogynecological, and oncogynecological operations. Thorough knowledge regarding pelvic anatomy of these spaces is vital to minimize morbidity and mortality. In this article, we defined nine avascular female pelvic spaces-their boundaries, different approaches, attention during dissection, and applications in obstetrics and gynecology. We described the fourth space and separate the paravesical and pararectal space, as nerve-sparing gynecological procedures request a precise understanding of retroperitoneal spaces.

Bowel surgery as a fertility-enhancing procedure in patients with colorectal endometriosis: methodological, pathogenic and ethical issues

Bowel surgery for colorectal endometriosis is being promoted to infertile women without severe sub-occlusive symptoms, with the objective of improving the likelihood of conception. Contrary to rectal shaving, bowel surgery involving full-thickness disk excision and segmental resection entails opening of the intestinal lumen thus increasing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. About 1 in 10 patients undergoing colorectal resection for intestinal endometriosis will experience severe sequelae, including anastomotic dehiscence, rectovaginal fistula formation, and bladder and bowel denervation. Similar to other surgical procedures aiming at enhancing fertility in women with endometriosis, bowel surgery has been introduced into clinical practice without adequate evaluation through randomized controlled trials. According to systematic literature reviews based mainly on case series, the incremental gain of adding bowel procedures to standard surgery appears uncertain in terms of pregnancy rate after both natural attempts and IVF. Considering the methodological drawbacks and the high risk of bias in the available observational studies, it is not possible to exclude the suggestion that the benefit of colorectal surgery has been overestimated. Given the risk of harms to women's health and the important ethical implications, less emphasis should be put on strict statistical significance and more emphasis should be placed on the magnitude of the effect size. In this regard, the published data may not be generalizable, as the surgeons publishing their results may not be representative of all surgeons. Until the results of adequately designed and conducted RCTs are available, colorectal surgery with the sole intent of improving the reproductive performance of infertile patients with intestinal endometriosis should be performed exclusively within research settings and by highly experienced surgeons. Women should be informed about the uncertainties regarding the harms and benefits of bowel surgery in different clinical conditions, and preoperative counselling must be conducted impartially with the objective of achieving a truly shared medical decision.