A rare case of paratubal cystadenoma during pregnancy

Clinical, Imaging, Histological and Surgical Aspects Regarding Giant Paraovarian Cysts: A Systematic Review

Paraovarian cysts (POCs) develop within the broad ligament of the uterus. POCs are considered to be giant when the threshold of 150 mm is exceeded. Clinical signs and symptoms occur as a consequence of the pressure effect on adjacent organs or due to complications. Abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging are useful imaging tools, but most often the exact origin of such voluminous cysts is revealed only by surgical exploration. The review aims to appraise and update the diagnostic, the histological aspects and the treatment of the giant POCs in rare cases. We carried out a systematic search in Medline-PubMed, Google Scholar and ResearchGate electronic databases. Twenty-seven papers fulfilling the selection criteria were included in the review. The data extracted included information about first author, year of publication, country, patient age, size and side of the POCs, symptoms, tumoral markers, imaging methods, preoperative diagnosis, surgical management and histopathological findings. Although not very numerous, all the studies highlighted the low incidence of giant POCs, the impossibility of establishing the origin of the cystic mass by clinical and imaging methods even with advanced technical tools and the low risk of torsion (11.1%). Despite the recognized benign nature of POCs, we found an unexpected high percent (25.9%) of borderline giant POCs. Surgical excision is the only treatment option. Ovarian-sparing surgery was performed in 85.1% of the cases, and minimally invasive techniques were applied in only 42.9% of the patients, which demonstrates the need of a high-level laparoscopic expertise. Knowledge of this pathology, its recognition as a possible etiology of an abdominopelvic cyst, and a higher awareness of the possibility of a borderline histology in giant POCs are required for the proper management of these particular cases.

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.