Cutaneous endometriosis: a combination of medical and surgical treatment

Primary versus secondary cutaneous endometriosis: Literature review and case study

Cutaneous endometriosis, characterized by the presence of endometrium or endometrial-like tissue outside of the uterine cavity, is an uncommon and chronic disease. Depending on a patient's history, cutaneous endometriosis is classified as either primary cutaneous endometriosis (PCE) or secondary cutaneous endometriosis (SCE). We report a case of SCE presenting with the classic triad of previous caesarean section, subcutaneous nodules at the site of the scar, and pain associated with menstruation. Considering histopathology as the standard, we confirmed a diagnosis of cutaneous endometriosis by ultrasound and histopathology. Furthermore, we compared and analyzed the clinical characteristics of PCE and SCE, the study included 20 and 14 patients with cutaneous endometriosis diagnosed with PCE and SCE respectively. In the PCE group, the mean age of patients at the onset was 33.7 years, while it was 40.6 years in the SCE group. The mean disease-duration time of PCE was shorter than that of SCE (1.3 vs. 2.8 years, P > 0.05). The most common clinical presentation of PCE and SCE was a nodule (90% vs. 86%). The PCE was mainly bleeding with pain (45%), whereas the SCE of only pain and bleeding with pain accounted for the same proportion (45%). The most common sites of PCE and SCE were in the umbilical region (90% vs. 57%, P < 0.05). In our study, some statistically significant difference was found between different types of CE and it may contribute to improve clinicians' understanding of the disease, and perform early diagnosis and treatment.

A case of scar endometriosis in cesarean scar: A rare case report

INTRODUCTION

Scar endometriosis is a rare entity characterized by presence of functional endometrial tissue in the site of surgical scar. Cesarean section scar is the most common reported site. We herein report a case of cesarean scar endometriosis in a 43-years-old female patient.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 43 year old female, with history of lower segment cesarean section 8 years back, presented to our center with complains of pain and palpable lump during menstruation, at the site of cesarean scar. On ultrasonography she was said to have some pathology in her previous surgical scar site. On MRI, a soft tissue mass measuring 25 × 35 mm within the subcutaneous tissue of anterior abdominal wall on the left side was seen. She was planned for surgical removal of the tissue.

DISCUSSION

Scar endometriosis is a rare entity. The iatrogenic implantation of the hormone sensitive endometrial tissue into the edge of the wound during surgery best explains its occurrence. They usually present as a painful nodule in the site of surgical scar that undergoes cyclic variation with the menstrual cycle. Diagnosis can be confirmed by radiography. Treatment options can be medical and surgical, the latter being more effective and the preferred one.

CONCLUSION

Scar endometriosis often mimics with variety of clinical conditions, so high degree of suspicion is necessary. Efforts should be aimed at minimizing the transfer of endometrial tissue into the subcutaneous area. Gloves replacement prior to closure can avoid the implantation of endometrial tissue into the abdominal wall.

Clinical presentation of perineal endometriosis and prognostic nomogram after surgical resection

Background

This retrospective study evaluated the clinical features of perineal endometriosis (PEM) and established a prognostic nomogram for recurrence probability in patients treated with surgical resection.

Methods

This study enrolled 130 PEM patients who had received surgical treatment in Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) between January 1992 and September 2020. We collected their clinical features and conducted outpatient or telephone follow-up. The predictive nomogram was constructed based on 104 patients who had completed follow-up by July 2021. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the prognostic effects of multiple clinical parameters on recurrence. The Index of concordance (C-index) and calibration curves were used to access the discrimination ability and predictive accuracy of the nomogram respectively, and the results were further validated via bootstrap resampling. Calculating the area under the curve (AUC) via risk scores of patients aimed to further access the predictive power of the model. In addition, the survival curve was depicted using Kaplan–Meier plot and compared by log-rank method.

Results

Most PEM patients had been symptomatic for 24–48 months before the lesion resection. With a median 99.00 (interquartile range: 47.25–137.50) months of postoperative observation, there were 16 (15.1%) out of 104 cases who finished follow-up reported symptomatic recurrence. On multivariate analysis of derivation cohort, multiple lesions, microscopically positive margin (mPM) and anal sphincter involvement (ASI) were selected into the nomogram. The C-index of the nomogram for predicting recurrence was 0.84 (95% CI 0.77–0.91). The calibration curve for probability of recurrence for 36, 60 and 120 months showed great agreement between prediction by nomogram and actual observation. Furthermore, the AUCs of risk score for 36, 60 and 120 months were 0.89, 0.87 and 0.82 respectively.

Conclusions

PEM is a rare kind of endometriosis and surgery is the primary treatment. Multiple lesions and ASI are independent risk factors for postoperative recurrence, and wide resection with more peripheral tissue could be preferred. The proposed nomogram resulted in effective prognostic prediction for PEM patients receiving surgical excision. In addition, this predictive nomogram needs external data sets to further validate its prognostic accuracy in the future.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Vulvo-Perineal Endometriosis: A Systematic Review

Objective: To describe the available knowledge on vulvo-perineal endometriosis including its diagnosis, clinical management and recurrence rate.

Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and our study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020202441). The terms “Endometriosis” and “Perineum” or “Vulva” were used as keywords. Cochrane Library, Medline/Pubmed, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Papers in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French or Italian from inception to July 30, 2020 were considered. Reference lists of included articles and other literature source such as Google Scholar were also manually scrutinized in order to identify other relevant studies. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible studies according to inclusion criteria.

Results: Out of 539 reports, 90 studies were eligible including a total of 283 patients. Their mean age was 32.7 ± 7.6 years. Two hundred sixty-three (95.3%) presenting with vulvo-perineal endometriosis have undergone either episiotomy, perineal trauma or vaginal injury or surgery. Only 13 patients (4.7%) developed vulvo-vaginal endometriosis spontaneously i.e., without any apparent condition favoring it. The reasons that motivated the patients to take medical advice were vulvo-perineal cyclical pain increasing during menstruations (98.2% of the patients, n = 278). Out of the 281 patients for whom a clinical examination was described, 274 patients (97.5%) showed a vulvo-perineal nodule, mass or swelling while six presented with bluish cutaneous lesions (2.1%) and 1 with bilateral polyps of the labia minora (0.4%). All but one patients underwent surgical excision of their lesions but only 88 patients (28.1%) received additional hormonal therapy. The recurrence rate was 10.2% (29 patients) considering a median follow-up period of 10 months (based on 61 studies).

Conclusion: In conclusion, vulvo-perineal endometriosis is a rare entity with approximately 300 cases reported in the literature since 1923. With the available knowledge shown in this systematic review, we encourage all practitioners to think about perineal endometriosis in case of perineal cyclical pain with or without previous perineal damage. Diagnosis should be done with clinical exam, perineal ultrasound and pelvic MRI when available. In case of anal sphincter involvement, perianal ultrasound should be performed. Surgical excision of the lesion should be realized in order to remove the lesion and to confirm the diagnosis histologically. Hormonal treatment could be proposed to attempt to decrease the size of a large lesion before surgery or to avoid recurrence of the lesion. As evidence-based approach to the diagnosis, treatment and recurrence rate of affected patients remains a challenge given its low prevalence, the variations in management found in the articles included and the limited quality of available studies, we suggest that a prospective database on vulvo-perineal endometriosis should be generated to increase knowledge but also awareness among healthcare professionals and optimize patients' care.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020202441.

Periclitoral endometriosis: the dilemma of a chronic disease invading a rare location

Endometriosis affects 6% to 10% of women of reproductive age; extrapelvic endometriosis is considered a rare event with perineal endometriosis being even rarer still (only a few cases of spontaneous episodes described, the majority being from episiotomy scars). We present a unique case of periclitoral endometriosis, which to the best of our knowledge is the first in the literature. It is a 29-year-old nulligravida female with a painful fluctuant right periclitoral mass that had been growing with no response to antibiotic therapy. At the initial removal, pathology reported the lesion as endometriosis. The patient was placed on oral contraceptives, and she was noted to have monthly swelling and shrinking of the site with her menstrual cycles. When she went off hormonal contraception, she represented with the growing lesion 3.5 weeks after her last menses; she underwent re-excision. Because of the extension of the lesion medially and its adherence to the clitoral body, the decision was made to evacuate only as much of the capsule that could be safely identified to minimize the risk of damaging the clitoris. Complete excision in this case was difficult without sacrificing a portion of the clitoris and potentially resulting in decreased sexual function and persistent clitoral pain. In a patient in whom complete excision is not possible, there is potential for mass recurrence in the setting of residual tissue. Reviewing the literature suggests that there are risks with both recurrence and clitoral excision. We found that in-depth patient counseling, hormonal suppression, and close follow-up are necessary when dealing with periclitoral endometriosis postexcision.