{"paper_id":"2eb650b7-4512-49ed-bcba-b0474203ab85","body_text":"Abstract\nPurpose\nTo compare women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with adenomyosis and women with leiomyomas.\nMaterials and methods\nRetrospective and questionnaire-based study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Women’s Clinic, Tuebingen, Germany. The study sample comprised a total of 454 women who underwent hysterectomy for adenomyosis or leiomyomas and responded to the questionnaire; 52 (11.4 %) women with a histologic diagnosis of adenomyosis and 452 (88.6 %) women with a histologic diagnosis of leiomyomas.\nResults\nBoth groups of patients had enlarged uteri, but women with adenomyosis had a lower mean uterine weight as compared to women with leiomyomas (p < 0.001). Women with adenomyosis had significantly more pregnancies (p = 0.003), were more likely to have more than one pregnancy (p = 0.033) or more than one delivery (p = 0.025) as compared to women with leiomyomas. In addition, women with adenomyosis had a significantly higher surgical procedure score (p = 0.017), had more frequently a history of laparotomy (p = 0.042) and a history of Cesarean section as compared to women with leiomyomas only (p = 0.024). Significantly, more women with adenomyosis had pelvic pain or pressure as compared to women with leiomyomas (p = 0.045). We observed no differences between the two groups of patients regarding pelvic pain during the menstrual period, irregular menstrual periods, heavy bleeding, painful sexual intercourse and urination problems. Furthermore, we observed no differences in the therapeutic impact of the surgical procedure between the two patient groups.\nConclusions\nWomen with a histologic diagnosis of adenomyosis differ from women who have only leiomyomas at the time of hysterectomy.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nChange history\n28 August 2019\nIn the Original article publication, the name of the co-author Antje Ganz was not included. The Correct order of authors is as given above.\nReferences\nFerenczy A (1998) Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update 4(4):312–322\nAzziz R (1989) Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 16(1):221–235\nBergholt T, Eriksen L, Berendt N, Jacobsen M, Hertz JB (2001) Prevalence and risk factors of adenomyosis at hysterectomy. Hum Reprod 16(11):2418–2421\nWeiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, Brockwell SE, Schocken M, Johnston JM (2009) Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the study of women’s health across the nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril 91(1):201–206\nLeyendecker G, Wildt L, Mall G (2009) The pathophysiology of endometriosis and adenomyosis: tissue injury and repair. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280:529–538\nWalker CL, Stewart EA (2005) Uterine fibroids: the elephant in the room. Science 308(5728):1589–1592\nCong RJ, Huang ZY, Cong L, Ye Y, Wang Z, Zha L, Cao LP, Su XW, Yan J, Li YB (2012) Polymorphisms in genes HSD17B1 and HSD17B2 and uterine leiomyoma risk in Chinese women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:701–705\nFernandez H, Farrugia M, Jones SE, Mauskopf JA, Oppelt P, Subramanian D (2009) Rate, type, and cost of invasive interventions for uterine myomas in Germany, France, and England. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(1):40–46\nBrill AI (2009) Treatment of fibroids via uterine artery occlusion (uterine artery embolization and Doppler-guided uterine artery occlusion): potential role in today’s armamentarium. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280:513–520\nStewart EA (2001) Uterine fibroids. Lancet 357(9252):293–298\nVercellini P, Parazzini F, Oldani S, Panazza S, Bramante T, Crosignani PG (1995) Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: a study on frequency distribution and patient characteristics. Hum Reprod 10(5):1160–1162\nVavilis D, Agorastos T, Tzafetas J, Loufopoulos A, Vakiani M, Constantinidis T, Patsiaoura K, Bontis J (1997) Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: prevalence and relationship to operative findings and reproductive and menstrual factors. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 24(1):36–38\nParazzini F, Vercellini P, Panazza S, Chatenoud L, Oldani S, Crosignani PG (1997) Risk factors for adenomyosis. Hum Reprod 12(6):1275–1279\nParazzini F, Mais V, Cipriani S, Busacca M, Venturini P (2009) Determinants of adenomyosis in women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: results from a prospective multicentric study in Italy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 143(2):103–106\nTaran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, Stewart EA (2010) Understanding adenomyosis: a case control study. Fertil Steril 94(4):1223–1228\nTaran FA, Weaver AL, Coddington CC, Stewart EA (2010) Characteristics indicating adenomyosis coexisting with leiomyomas: a case-control study. Hum Reprod 25(5):1177–1182\nTaran FA, Wallwiener M, Kabashi D, Rothmund R, Rall K, Kraemer B, Brucker SY (2012) Clinical characteristics indicating adenomyosis at the time of hysterectomy: a retrospective study in 291 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(6):1571–1576\nWallwiener M, Taran FA, Rothmund R, Kasperkowiak A, Auwarter G, Ganz A, Kraemer B, Abele H, Schonfisch B, Isaacson KB, Brucker SY (2013) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH): an implementation study in 1,952 patients with an analysis of risk factors for conversion to laparotomy and complications, and of procedure-specific re-operations. Arch Gynecol Obstet. doi:10.1007/s00404-013-2921-x\nBoosz A, Lermann J, Mehlhorn G, Loehberg C, Renner SP, Thiel FC, Schrauder M, Beckmann MW, Mueller A (2011) Comparison of re-operation rates and complication rates after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158(2):269–273\nLevgur M, Abadi MA, Tucker A (2000) Adenomyosis: symptoms, histology, and pregnancy terminations. Obstet Gynecol 95(5):688–691\nPanganamamula UR, Harmanli OH, Isik-Akbay EF, Grotegut CA, Dandolu V, Gaughan JP (2004) Is prior uterine surgery a risk factor for adenomyosis? Obstet Gynecol 104(5 Pt 1):1034–1038\nVercellini P, Vigano P, Somigliana E, Daguati R, Abbiati A, Fedele L (2006) Adenomyosis: epidemiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 20(4):465–477\nLu HF, Sheu BC, Shih JC, Chang YL, Torng PL, Huang SC (1997) Intramural ectopic pregnancy. Sonographic picture and its relation with adenomyosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76(9):886–889\nSpies JB, Coyne K, Guaou Guaou N, Boyle D, Skyrnarz-Murphy K, Gonzalves SM (2002) The UFS-QOL, a new disease-specific symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaire for leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol 99(2):290–300\nPeddada SD, Laughlin SK, Miner K, Guyon JP, Haneke K, Vahdat HL, Semelka RC, Kowalik A, Armao D, Davis B, Baird DD (2008) Growth of uterine leiomyomata among premenopausal black and white women. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(50):19887–19892\nConflict of interest\nWe declare that we have no conflict of interest.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nAdditional information\nB. Boeer and M. Wallwiener have contributed equally to this work.\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nBoeer, B., Wallwiener, M., Rom, J. et al. Differences in the clinical phenotype of adenomyosis and leiomyomas: a retrospective, questionnaire-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 1235–1239 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3141-0\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3141-0","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}