{"paper_id":"45b51320-acde-49f0-9293-4ad786224441","body_text":"International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nRole\n \no\nf\n \nLaparoscopy\n \nin\n \nEndometriosis\n \n-\n \nA\n \nProspective\n \nStudy\n \nin\n \na\n \nTertiary\n \nCare\n \nCentre\n \n \nDr\n.\n \nRajashree\n \nMuralidhar\n \nThatikonda\n1\n,\n \nDr.\n \nTushar\n \nTatyaba\n \nPalve\n2\n \n \n1\nAssistant\n \nProfessor\n,\n \nGovernment\n \nMedical\n \nCollege,\n \nMumbai\n, Maharashtra, India\n \n \n2\nAssociate\n \nProfessor,\n \nGovernment\n \nMedical\n \nCollege,\n \nMumbai\n, Maharashtra, India\n \n \nAbstract\n:\n \nAims\n \nand\n \nobjectives\n \nof\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nare\n \nthe\n \nfollowing:\n \n1)\n \nTo\n \nstudy\n \nthe\n \nrole\n \nof\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nin\n \nthe\n \ndiagnosis\n \nand\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nendometriosis.\n \n2\n)\n \nTo\n \nfind\n \nthe\n \nprevalence\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \na\n \nparticular\n \nage\n \ngroup.\n \n3)\n \nTo\n \nassess\n \nthe\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \ntypical\n \nclinical\n \nfeatures\n \nin\n \nendometriosis.\n \nBackground\n:\n \nThis\n \nis\n \na\n \nprospective\n \ndescriptive\n \nstudy\n \nof\n \n50\n \ncases\n \nof\n \npelvic\n \nendometriosis\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nrole\n \nof\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nin\n \ndiagnosis\n \nand\n \nmanagement\n \nat\n \na\n \ntertiary\n \ncenter.\n \nMethods\n:\n \nThis\n \nis\n \na\n \nprospective\n \ndescriptive\n \nstudy\n \nof\n \n50\n \ncases,\n \nconducted\n \nat\n \nCama\n \nand\n \nAlbless\n \nHospital\n \nin\n \nMumbai\n \nover\n \n2\n4\n \nmonths\n \nfrom\n \nOctober\n \n202\n2\n \nto\n \nOctober\n \n202\n4\n \nregarding\n \nthe\n \nrole\n \nof\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nsurgery\n \nin\n \ndiagnosing\n \nas\n \nwell\n \nas\n \ntreating\n \nendometriosis\n.\n \nResult\n:\n \nOut\n \nof\n \n50\n \nwomen\n \nhaving\n \nendometriosis\n-\nrelated\n \ninfertility,\n \n2\n1\n \nwomen\n \n(\n42\n%)\n \namong\n \nthe\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nof\n \n2\n6\n-\n30\n \nyears.\n \n2\n2\n \nwomen\n \n(\n59.46\n%)\n \nwere\n \nnulligravida.\n \n7\n \nwomen\n \n(\n14\n%)\n \nhad\n \na\n \nmild\n \ndegree\n,\n \n21\n \nwomen\n \n(\n42\n%)\n \nhad\n \nmoderate\n \ndegree\n \nendometriosis\n \nand\n \n22\n \nwomen\n \n(44%)\n \nhad\n \nsevere\n \nendometriosis\n.\n \n22\n \nwomen\n \n(\n44\n%)\n \nhad\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \novarian\n \ntissue\n,\n \n16\n \nwomen\n \n(32%)\n \nhad\n \nadhesions\n \nand\n \n6\n \nwomen\n \n(12%)\n \nhad\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n.\n \n80%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nreceived\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nsurgical\n \nmanagement\n \nwhile\n \n20%\n \nreceived\n \nmedical\n \nmanagement.\n \n76%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nincreased\n \nlevels\n \nof\n \nCA\n \n125.\n \nConclusion\n:\n \nAll\n \nthe\n \ncases\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nwere\n \ndiagnosed\n \non\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nand\n \ntreated\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nsame\n \nsetting\n \nby\n \nminimally\n \ninvasive\n \nsurgery,\n \nproving\n \nthat\n \nit\n \nis\n \nthe\n \ngold\n \nstandard\n \ntool\n \nfor\n \ndiagnosing\n \nas\n \nwell\n \nas\n \nin\n \nthe\n \ntreatment\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n.\n \n \nKeywords:\n \nendometriosis, laparoscopy, diagnosis and management, minimally invasive surgery, infertility\n \n \n1.\n \nIntroduction\n \n \nEndometriosis\n \nis\n \na\n \ncondition\n \nwhere\n \ntissue\n \nsimilar\n \nto\n \nthe\n \nendometrium\n \n(the\n \nlining\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nuterus)\n \ngrows\n \noutside\n \nthe\n \nuterus.\n \nThis\n \ntriggers\n \na\n \nchronic\n \ninflammatory\n \nresponse,\n \nleading\n \nto\n \nthe\n \nformation\n \nof\n \nscar\n \ntissue\n \n(adhesions\n \nand\n \nfibrosis)\n \nwithin\n \nthe\n \npelvis\n \nand\n \nother\n \nparts\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nbody.\n \nThe\n \ndisease\n \nmanifests\n \nin\n \nseveral\n \nforms,\n \nincluding:\n \n \n•\n \nSuperficial\n \nendometriosis:\n \nFound\n \nmainly\n \non\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \nperitoneum.\n \n•\n \nCystic\n \novarian\n \nendometriosis\n \n(endometrioma):\n \nLocated\n \nin\n \nthe\n \novaries.\n \n•\n \nDeep\n \ninfiltrating\n \nendometriosis:\n \nFound\n \nin\n \nareas\n \nsuch\n \nas\n \nthe\n \nrecto\n-\nvaginal\n \nseptum,\n \nbladder,\n \nand\n \nbowel.\n \n•\n \nRare\n \nextrapelvic\n \nendometriosis:\n \nOccasionally\n \nfound\n \noutside\n \nthe\n \npelvis.\n \n \nSymptoms\n \nof\n \nEndometriosis\n \nEndometriosis\n \npresents\n \nwith\n \na\n \nrange\n \nof\n \nsymptoms,\n \nwhich\n \nmay\n \ninclude:\n \n \n•\n \nDysmenorrhea\n \n(painful\n \nperiods)\n \n•\n \nChronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \n•\n \nDyspareunia\n \n(pain\n \nduring\n \nintercourse)\n \n•\n \nPainful\n \nbowel\n \nmovements\n \n•\n \nDysuria\n \n(painful\n \nurination)\n \n•\n \nDepression\n \nor\n \nanxiety\n \n•\n \nAbdominal\n \nbloating\n \nand\n \nnausea\n \n \nAdditionally,\n \nendometriosis\n \ncan\n \ncause\n \ninfertility,\n \nlikely\n \ndue\n \nto\n \nits\n \nimpact\n \non\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \ncavity,\n \novaries,\n \nfallopian\n \ntubes,\n \nor\n \nuterus.\n \nInterestingly,\n \nthe\n \nseverity\n \nof\n \nsymptoms\n \ndoes\n \nnot\n \nalways\n \ncorrespond\n \nto\n \nthe\n \nextent\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ndisease.\n \nFor\n \ninstance,\n \nsome\n \nindividuals\n \nwith\n \nextensive\n \nlesions\n \nmay\n \nexperience\n \nmild\n \nsymptoms,\n \nwhile\n \nothers\n \nwith\n \nminimal\n \nlesions\n \nmay\n \nreport\n \nsevere\n \ndiscomfort.\n \nSymptoms\n \noften\n \nimprove\n \nafter\n \nmenopause,\n \nthough\n \npain\n \nmay\n \npersist\n \nin\n \nsome\n \ncases\n \ndue\n \nto\n \ncentral\n \nsensitization,\n \nwhere\n \npain\n \ncenters\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nbrain\n \nbecome\n \nhyper\n-\nresponsive.\n \nThis\n \nchronic\n \npain\n \nmay\n \ncontinue\n \neven\n \nif\n \nthe\n \nlesions\n \nare\n \nno\n \nlonger\n \nvisible.\n \nIn\n \nsome\n \ncases,\n \nendometriosis\n \nremains\n \nasymptomatic.\n \n \nEndometriosis\n \nhas\n \nsignificant\n \nsocial,\n \npublic\n \nhealth,\n \nand\n \neconomic\n \nimplications.\n \nIt\n \ncan\n \nseverely\n \naffect\n \nquality\n \nof\n \nlife\n \ndue\n \nto\n \npain,\n \nfatigue,\n \ndepression,\n \nanxiety,\n \nand\n \ninfertility.\n \nFor\n \nsome\n \nindividuals,\n \nthe\n \npain\n \nis\n \ndebilitating,\n \ndisrupting\n \ndaily\n \nactivities\n \nand\n \naffecting\n \nsexual\n \nhealth\n \ndue\n \nto\n \npainful\n \nintercourse.\n \nAddressing\n \nendometriosis\n \nis\n \nessential\n \nfor\n \nimproving\n \nsexual\n \nand\n \nreproductive\n \nhealth,\n \noverall\n \nwell\n-\nbeing,\n \nand\n \nquality\n \nof\n \nlife\n \nfor\n \nthose\n \naffected.\n \n \nLaparoscopy\n \nis\n \nthe\n \ngold\n \nstandard\n \nfor\n \ndiagnosing\n \nendometriosis.\n \nThis\n \nminimally\n \ninvasive\n \nsurgical\n \nprocedure\n \nprovides\n \ndirect\n \nvisualization\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \norgans\n \nand\n \nperitoneum,\n \nallowing\n \nfor\n \naccurate\n \nidentification\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nlesions,\n \ntheir\n \nlocations,\n \nand\n \nassociated\n \nfactors\n \nsuch\n \nas\n \ntubal\n \nand\n \nperitoneal\n \nabnormalities.\n \n \nDuring\n \nlaparoscopy,\n \nabnormalities\n \nlike\n \nendometriosis,\n \ntubal\n \nblockages,\n \nor\n \npelvic\n \nadhesions\n \ncan\n \nbe\n \nboth\n \ndiagnosed\n \nand\n \ntreated\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nsame\n \nsession.\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nchromopertubation\n—\na\n \nmethod\n \nfor\n \nassessing\n \ntubal\n \npatency\n—\nis\n \nalso\n \nperformed\n \nduring\n \nthe\n \nprocedure.\n \nIt\n \ninvolves\n \ninjecting\n \ndye\n \ninto\n \nthe\n \ncervix\n \nand\n \nobserving\n \nits\n \nspillage\n \nthrough\n \nthe\n \nfallopian\n \ntubes,\n \nconfirming\n \ntheir\n \npatency.\n \n \nAlthough\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nis\n \nmore\n \nexpensive\n \nand\n \ninvasive\n \ncompared\n \nto\n \nsome\n \nother\n \ndiagnostic\n \nmethods,\n \nit\n \navoids\n \nradiation\n \nexposure\n \nand\n \nprovides\n \na\n \ncomprehensive,\n \nreal\n-\ntime\n \nview\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nabdominopelvic\n \nregion.\n \nIts\n \ndual\n \ndiagnostic\n \nand\n \ntherapeutic\n \ncapabilities\n \nmake\n \nit\n \na\n \nvaluable\n \ntool\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nevaluation\n \nand\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \ninfertility.\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n243 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nThis\n \nstudy\n \naims\n \nto\n \nevaluate\n \nthe\n \neffectiveness\n \nof\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nin\n \ndiagnosing\n \nendometriosis\n \nand\n \nits\n \nrole\n \nin\n \nthe\n \ntreatment\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ncondition\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nImages\n \n(Cama\n \nand\n \nAlbless\n \nHospital,\n \nMumbai).\n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n:\n \nEndometriotic\n \ndeposits\n \non\n \npelvic\n \nwalls\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n2\n:\n \nEndometriotic\n \ndeposits\n \non\n \nthe\n \nurinary\n \nbladder\n \n(powder\n \nburnt\n \ndeposits\n)\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n244 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n \nFigure\n \n3\n:\n \nE\nndometriotic\n \npatches\n \non\n \nthe\n \nperitoneum\n \n \nFigure\n \n4\n \nand\n \n5\n:\n \nDense\n \nperihepatic\n \nadhesions\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n4\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n245 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n \nFigure\n \n5\n \n \nFigure\n \nNo:\n \n6,\n \n7\n:\n \nDense\n \nadhesions\n \ndue\n \nto\n \nendometriosis\n \n \nFigure\n \n6\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n7\nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n246 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nNo:\n \n8\n,\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nAdhesiolysis\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n8\n \nFigure\n \nNo\n \n9,\n \n10\n,\n \nOvarian\n \nEndometriomas\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n9\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n247 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n0\n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n1,\n \n12,\n \n13,\n \n14\n,\n \nLaparoscopic\n \ncyst\n \naspiration\n \nsos\n \ncystectomy.\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n1\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n248 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n2\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n3\n \n \n \nFigure\n \n1\n4\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n249 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n2.\n \nMethodology\n \n \nStudy\n \nDesign\n:\n \nA\n \nprospective\n \ndescriptive\n \nstudy\n \nw\nas\n \nconducted\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nDepartment\n \nof\n \nGynaecology\n \n&\n \nObstetrics\n \nof\n \nTertiary\n \nCare\n \nCentre\n,\n \nMumbai.\n \n \nStudy\n \nSite\n:\n \nThe\n \nstudy\n \nw\nas\n \nconducted\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nDepartment\n \nof\n \nObstetrics\n \nand\n \nGynaecology\n \nin\n \nan\n \nUrban\n \nTertiary\n \nCare\n \nHospital.\n \n \nSample\n \nSize\n:\n \nA\n \ntotal\n \nof\n \n‗\n50‘\n \nwomen\n \npresenting\n \nwith\n \nChronic\n \nPelvic\n \nPain,\n \ninfertility,\n \nand\n \ndysmenorrhoea\n \nfor\n \nmore\n \nthan\n \n6\n \nmonths\n \nfrom\n \nOPD\n \nand\n \nIPD\n \nat\n \nCama\n \nand\n \nAlbless\n \nHospital,\n \nMumbai,\n \nwere\n \ntaken\n \nfor\n \nthe\n \nstudy.\n \nInformed\n \nconsent\n \nw\nas\n \nobtained\n \nfrom\n \nall\n \nthe\n \nsubjects.\n \nAll\n \n50\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nevaluated\n \nclinically,\n \nbiochemically,\n \nradiologically\n,\n \nand\n \nlaparoscopically\n \nto\n \nfind\n \nout\n \nthe\n \nabnormalities.\n \n \nStudy\n \nDuration\n:\n \nThe\n \nstudy\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \nconducted\n \nover\n \n22\n \nmonths\n,\n \nfrom\n \nOctober\n \n202\n2\n \nto\n \nOcto\nber\n \n202\n4\n.\n \n \nSubject\n \nPopulation:\n \nPatients\n \nsuffering\n \nfrom\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \nfor\n \nmore\n \nthan\n \n6\n \nmonths\n \nattending\n \nthe\n \noutpatient\n \ndepartment\n \nin\n \nour\n \ntertiary\n \ncare\n \nhospital.\n \n \nSelection\n \nCriteria:\n \n \nInclusion\n \nCriteria\n:\n \n•\n \nWomen\n \nfrom\n \n18\n \nto\n \n41\n \nyears\n \nold\n \n•\n \nAll\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nprimary\n \nor\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility\n \nsubjected\n \nto\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nand\n \nwho\n \nwere\n \ndiagnosed\n \nto\n \nhave\n \nendometriosis\n.\n \nWomen\n \nwith\n \ndysmenorrhoea\n \nand\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npains\n \nwho\n \nwere\n \nwilling\n \nfor\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nand\n \nwere\n \ndiagnosed\n \nto\n \nhave\n \nendometriosis\n \n•\n \nConsenting\n \nto\n \nparticipate\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \nand\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nprocedures.\n \n \nExclusion\n \nCriteria\n:\n \n•\n \nAny\n \ncontraindications\n \nfor\n \ngeneral\n \nanesthesia\n \nor\n \nlaparoscopy.\n \n•\n \nWomen\n \nwith\n \nPID,\n \na\n \nhistory\n \nof\n \ntuberculosis,\n \nadhesions\n \ndue\n \nto\n \nprevious\n \nsurgery\n,\n \nor\n \ninfections\n \nwere\n \nexcluded.\n \n•\n \nPatients\n \nnot\n \nwilling\n \nto\n \nparticipate\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy.\n \n \nStudy\n \nProcedure:\n \nThe\n \nstudy\n \nw\nas\n \ncarried\n \nout\n \nat\n \na\n \ntertiary\n \ncare\n \nhospital\n \nafter\n \nobtaining\n \ninformed\n \nconsent\n \nto\n \ncollect\n \ndata\n \nfrom\n \nIPD\n \nand\n \nOPD\n \npatients.\n \nA\n \nminimum\n \ncount\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients\n \nattending\n \nOPD\n \nand\n \nIPD\n \nwith\n \ndysmenorrhoea,\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \nand\n \ninfertility\n \nw\nere\n \nenrolled\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy.\n \nAll\n \n50\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nevaluated\n \nclinically,\n \nbiochemically,\n \nradiologically\n,\n \nand\n \nlaparoscopically\n \nto\n \nfind\n \nout\n \nthe\n \nabnormalities.\n \nThe\n \npatients\n \nwho\n \ngive\n \nconsent\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \ninterviewed,\n \nand\n \ninformation\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \nfilled\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstructured\n \nproforma\n \ngiven:\n \n \nThe\n \nP\nroforma\n \ncontains:\n \n1)\n \nDemographic\n \ndetails\n \nsuch\n \nas\n \npatient\n \nregistration\n \nnumber,\n \nname,\n \ninitials,\n \ngender,\n \nand\n \ndiagnosis.\n \n2)\n \nWhile\n \nrecording\n \nthe\n \nhistory,\n \na\n \nparticular\n \ninquiry\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \nmade\n \nregarding\n \nassociated\n \nsymptoms\n \nlike\n \ndysmenorrhea,\n \ndyspareunia,\n \ninfertility,\n \nenteric\n \nsymptoms,\n \nurologic\n \nsymptoms,\n \nand\n \nmusculoskeletal\n \nsymptoms.\n \n3)\n \nPhysical\n \nexamination\n \nwill\n \ninclude\n \na\n \ngeneral\n \nphysical\n \nexamination\n \nand\n \nsystemic\n \nand\n \nabdominal\n \nexamination.\n \n4)\n \nGynecological\n \nexamination\n \nwill\n \ninclude\n \ninspection\n \nof\n \nvulva\n \nand\n \nperineum,\n \nSpeculum\n \nexamination\n \nof\n \ncervix\n \nand\n \nvagina,\n \nbimanual\n \nexamination\n \nto\n \nassess\n \nthe\n \nshape,\n \nsize,\n \ndirection,\n \nmobility\n \nof\n \nuterus\n \nand\n \nadnexa,\n \nmass\n \nand\n \ntenderness\n \nof\n \nurethra,\n \nvaginal\n \nfornix\n \nand\n \ncervical\n \nmotion\n \ntenderness.\n \n5)\n \nInvestigations\n \nwill\n \ninclude\n \nComplete\n \nblood\n \ncount,\n \nUrine\n \nroutine\n \nand\n \nmicroscopic,\n \nUrine\n \nculture\n \nand\n \nsensitivity,\n \nCoagulation\n \nProfile,\n \nLiver\n \nfunction\n \ntest,\n \nKidney\n \nfunction\n \ntest,\n \nChest\n \nx\n-\nray,\n \nElectrocardiogram,\n \na\n \ntransvaginal\n \nor\n \nabdominal\n \nultrasound,\n \nCancer\n \nantigen\n-\n125,\n \nLactic\n \ndehydrogenase,\n \nβ\n \nHuman\n \nchorionic\n \nantigen,\n \nCarcinoembryonic\n \nantigen\n \n(if\n \nrequired).\n \n \n \nLaparoscopies\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \nperformed\n \nunder\n \nGeneral\n \nanesthesia\n \nusing\n \na\n \nstandard\n \ntechnique\n \nby\n \na\n \n10\n \nmm\n \nport\n \nat\n \nthe\n \ninfra\n-\numbilical\n \narea\n \nfor\n \na\n \n30\n-\ndegree\n \ntelescope\n \nand\n \nanother\n \none\n \nby\n \ntwo\n \n5mm\n \nipsilateral\n \nworking\n \nports.\n \nThe\n \nwhole\n \nabdominal\n \ncavity\n \nwas\n \ninspected,\n \nincluding\n \nthe\n \nundersurface\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ndiaphragm\n \nand\n \nliver.\n \nFurther,\n \nthe\n \ninspection\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nfor\n \nuterus\n,\n \nFallopian\n \ntubes,\n \nOvaries,\n \nPouch\n \nof\n \nDouglas\n \nPOD,\n \nAdhesion\n-\n \ntype\n \nand\n \nsite,\n \nBroad\n \nligament,\n \nvaricosity\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nvessel,\n \nand\n \nPelvic\n \nperitoneum.\n \nFor\n \nall\n \nendometriotic\n \nlesions,\n \nthe\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nappearance,\n \nthe\n \ndiameter\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nlesion,\n \nand\n \nthe\n \ndepth\n \nof\n \ninfiltration\n \nwere\n \ncarefully\n \nregistered\n \nduring\n \nsurgery.\n \nAn\n \nendometriotic\n \nlesion\n \nwas\n \nclassified\n \nas\n \na\n \nwhite\n \nvesicle,\n \na\n \nred\n \nvesicle,\n \na\n \npolypoid\n \nlesion,\n \na\n \nsmall\n \nblack\n \npuckered\n \nspot,\n \na\n \nlarger\n \nwhite\n \nplaque\n \nwith\n \nscarring\n \nand\n \nblack\n \npuckered\n \nspots,\n \nor\n \nas\n \nan\n \nendometriotic\n \ncyst.\n \n \nThe\n \nstudy\n \nwas\n \nconducted\n \nafter\n \nobtaining\n \npermission\n \nfrom\n \nthe\n \nInstitutional\n \nEthics\n \nCommittee\n \n(IEC).\n \nAll\n \nthe\n \ndata\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \nkept\n \nstrictly\n \nconfidential\n \nand\n \nused\n \nfor\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nas\n \ndescribed\n \nbelow.\n \nWritten,\n \nValid\n \nInformed\n \nConsent(in\n \nEnglish,\n \nHindi,\n \nand\n \nMarathi)\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \ntaken\n \nfrom\n \nthe\n \nsubjects\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy.\n \nAny\n \ndeviation\n \nfrom\n \nthe\n \nbelow\n-\ngiven\n \nmethods\n \nwill\n \nbe\n \ninformed\n \nto\n \nthe\n \nIEC,\n \nand\n \nonly\n \nafter\n \nthe\n \nIEC's\n \napproval\n \nwill\n \nany\n \nchanges\n \nbe\n \nmade.\n \nThe\n \nproforma\n \nfor\n \nthe\n \nwritten\n \ninformed\n \nconsent\n \nis\n \ngiven\n \nherewith\n \n \n3.\n \nObservation\n \na\nnd\n \nResults\n \n \nThis\n \nis\n \na\n \nprospective\n \ndescriptive\n \nevaluation\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nwomen\n \nin\n \nthe\n \ntertiary\n \ncare\n \ncenter,\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nat\n \nthe\n \nDepartment\n \nof\n \nObstetrics\n \nand\n \nGynaecology\n \nat\n \na\n \ntertiary\n \nhospital\n \nafter\n \nobtaining\n \npermission\n \nfrom\n \nthe\n \nInstitutional\n \nEthics\n \nCommittee.\n \nIn\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \nentitled\n \n―Role\n \nof\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nin\n \nendometriosis\n-\n \na\n \nprospective\n \nstudy\n \nin\n \na\n \ntertiary\n \ncare\n \ncenter,\n \n‖\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nevaluated\n \nclinically\n \nand\n \nunderwent\n \nlaparoscopy.\n \nAt\n \nthe\n \nend\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nstudy,\n \nwe\n \nachieved\n \nthe\n \nfollowing\n \nresults.\n \n \nTable\n \n1:\n \nAge\n-\nwise\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \npopulation\n \nAge\n \nGroups\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \n15\n-\n \n20\n \n3\n \n6%\n \n21\n-\n \n25\n \n12\n \n24%\n \n26\n-\n \n30\n \n21\n \n42%\n \n31\n-\n \n35\n \n12\n \n24%\n \n>\n \n35\n \n2\n \n4%\n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n250 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nThe\n \naverage\n \nage\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nparticipants\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nwas\n \n27.68\n \nyears\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nrange\n \nof\n \n18\n \n–\n \n41\n \nyears.\n \nThe\n \nmajority\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nparticipants,\n \n21\n \nwomen\n,\n \nwere\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nof\n \n26\n-\n \n30\n \nyears.\n \nThe\n \nrelative\n \nage\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \nparticipants\n \nwas:\n \n15\n-\n20\n \nyears:\n \n3,\n \n21\n-\n25\n \nyears:\n \n12,\n \n26\n-\n30\n \nyears:\n \n21,\n \n31\n-\n35\n \nyears:\n \n12,\n \nand\n \nmore\n \nthan\n \n35\n \nyears:\n \n2.\n \nThe\n \nminimum\n \nage\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nparticipants\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nwas\n \n20\n \nyears,\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nmaximum\n \nage\n \nwas\n \n40\n \nyears.\n \n \n \nTable\n \n2:\n \nDistribution\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nBMI\n \n(body\n \nmass\n \nindex)\n \nAge\n \nGroups\n \n<20\n \n20\n-\n23\n \n23\n-\n26\n \n26\n-\n29\n \n29\n-\n32\n \n32\n-\n34\n \nNo.\n \nof\n \nPatient\n \n3\n \n5\n \n17\n \n17\n \n5\n \n3\n \nPercentage\n \n6%\n \n10%\n \n34%\n \n34%\n \n10%\n \n6%\n \n \nThe\n \naverage\n \nBMI\n \n(body\n \nmass\n \nindex)\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nparticipants\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nwas\n \n26.10\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nrange\n \nof\n \n17\n \nto\n \n35.\n \nThe\n \nminimum\n \nBMI\n \nof\n \nparticipants\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nwas\n \n17.31,\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nmaximum\n \nBMI\n \nof\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nparticipants\n \nwas\n \n34.69.\n \nThe\n \nmajority\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nparticipants,\n \ni.e.\n \n17,\n \nwere\n \nwith\n \nBMI\n \nranges\n \nof\n \n23\n \n–\n \n26\n \nand\n \n26\n-\n29.\n \n \n \n \n \nTable\n \n3:\n \nDistribution\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nthe\n \nobstetric\n \nhistory\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nParity\n \nNullygravida\n \nMultipara\n \nAbortions\n \nNo.\n \nof\n \nPatient\n \n26\n \n17\n \n7\n \nPercentage\n \n52%\n \n34%\n \n14%\n \n \nThe\n \nmaximum\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nwere\n \nNulliparous\n \nwomen,\n \nwhich\n \nindirectly\n \npoints\n \nout\n \nthe\n \nincreased\n \nrate\n \nof\n \ninfertility\n \ndue\n \nto\n \nendometriosis,\n \nwhich\n \naccounts\n \nfor\n \n52%\n \nof\n \nwomen\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy.\n \n \nThe\n \nprevious\n \nhistory\n \nof\n \nabortions\n \nand\n \ndeliveries\n \nmay\n \nalso\n \nlead\n \nto\n \nretrograde\n \ntransmission\n \nof\n \nendometrial\n \ntissue\n \nleading\n \nto\n \nendometriosis,\n \nin\n \nwhich\n \nabortions\n \naccount\n \nfor\n \n14%,\n \nand\n \nmultiparous\n \nwomen\n \nfor\n \n34,\n \n%\n \nfurther\n \nleading\n \nto\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility\n \n \n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n251 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nTable\n \n4:\n \nD\nistribution\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nmarital\n \nstatus\n \nMarital\n \nStatus\n \nMarried\n \nUnmarried\n \nNo.\n \no\nf\n \nPatients\n \n46\n \n4\n \nPercentage\n \n92%\n \n8%\n \n \nMost\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nwas\n \nconducted\n \nin\n \npatients\n \ncomplaining\n \nof\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \nand\n \ninfertility,\n \nhence\n \nmaximum\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nwho\n \nunderwent\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nwere\n \nmarried\n \nand\n \naccounted\n \nfor\n \n92%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \n \n \n \nTable\n \n5:\n \nDistribution\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nprevious\n \nmodes\n \nof\n \ndelivery\n \nModes\n \nof\n \nDelivery\n \nVaginal\n \nDelivery\n \nLSCS\n \nAbortions\n \nNo.\n \nof\n \nPatient\n \n16\n \n9\n \n9\n \nPercentage\n \n32%\n \n18%\n \n18%\n \n \nAccording\n \nto\n \nsome\n \nstudies,\n \nmodes\n \nof\n \ndelivery\n \nof\n \nprevious\n \npregnancies\n \nplay\n \nan\n \nimportant\n \nrole\n \nin\n \nthe\n \netiology\n \nof\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \nIn\n \ncesarean\n \nsections,\n \nthere\n \nare\n \nchances\n \nof\n \nintraperitoneal\n \nseeding\n \nof\n \nendometrial\n \ntissue\n \nduring\n \nsurgery.\n \nThere\n \nare\n \nalso\n \nincreased\n \ncases\n \nof\n \nscar\n \nendometriosis\n \ndue\n \nto\n \nimproper\n \nsuturing\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nuterus\n \nin\n \ncesarean\n \nsections.\n \n \nBut\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \na\n \nmaximum\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nhad\n \na\n \nhistory\n \nof\n \nnormal\n \nvaginal\n \ndeliveries\n \naccounting\n \nfor\n \n32%,\n \nand\n \nwith\n \na\n \nhistory\n \nof\n \ncesarean\n \nsection\n \nwas\n \n18%.\n \nOthers,\n \nabout\n \n18%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \na\n \nhistory\n \nof\n \nabortions\n \n \n \nTable\n \n6\n:\n \nPer\n \nvaginum\n \nExamination\n \nfindings\n \nin\n \nall\n \nthe\n \ncases\n \nPer\n \nvaginum\n \nExamination\n \nfindings\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nCervical\n \nmotion\n \ntenderness\n \n9\n \n18%\n \nRestricted\n \ncervical\n \nmotility\n \n20\n \n40%\n \nUnilateral/bilateral\n \nbogginess\n \n21\n \n42%\n \nNormal\n \n8\n \n16%\n \n \nMost\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nshowed\n \nunilateral\n \nor\n \nbilateral\n \nforniceal\n \nbogginess\n \nfelt\n \non\n \nper\n \nvaginal\n \nexamination\n \ndue\n \nto\n \nthe\n \npresence\n \nof\n \nendometriomas\n \naccounting\n \nfor\n \n42%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients.\n \nAround\n \n40%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \ncervical\n \nmotility\n \nrestriction,\n \nand\n \n18%\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nhad\n \ncervical\n \nmotion\n \ntenderness.\n \nAbout\n \n16%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nshowed\n \nnormal\n \nper\n \nvaginal\n \nfindings.\n \n \nTable\n \n7:\n \nLevels\n \nof\n \nserum\n \nmarkers:\n \nCA\n-\n125\n \nin\n \nendometriosis\n \nLevels\n \nNormal\n \nIncreased\n \nNo.\n \nof\n \nPatient\n \n12\n \n38\n \nPercentage\n \n24%\n \n76%\n \n \nThis\n \nstudy\n \nrevealed\n \nthat\n \n76%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nhad\n \nraised\n \nserum\n \nCA\n-\n \n125\n \nlevels,\n \ni.e.\n,\n \n38\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nraised\n \nlevels\n \nof\n \nserum\n \nCA\n-\n125,\n \nmaximum\n \nincluding\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \novarian\n \nendometriomas.\n \n25\n \nout\n \nof\n \n38\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nraised\n \nCA\n-\n125\n \nhad\n \novarian\n \nendometrioma.\n \n \nIn\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \novarian\n \nendometriomas,\n \nserum\n \nCA\n-\n125\n \nhas\n \nproven\n \nnon\n-\nspecific\n \nto\n \nrule\n \nout\n \nmalignancy\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy,\n \nas\n \nall\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \novarian\n \nendometriomas\n \nhave\n \nshown\n \nraised\n \nCA\n-\n125\n \nlevels\n \n \n \n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n252 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nTable\n \n8:\n \nUltrasonography\n \nfindings\n \nin\n \nendometriosis\n \nUSG\n \nFindings\n \nEndometriomas\n \nFeatures\n \nS/O\n \nPelvic\n \nCongestion\n \nNO\n \nAbnormality\n \nDetected\n \nNo.\n \nof\n \nPatients\n \n25\n \n8\n \n25\n \nPercentage\n \n50%\n \n16%\n \n50%\n \n \nPatients\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nusually\n \ncame\n \nwith\n \nultrasonography\n \nreports,\n \nwhich\n \nis\n \nthe\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \ninvestigation,\n \nand\n \nwere\n \nsuspected\n \nof\n \nhaving\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \n50%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nfindings\n \nof\n \nendometriomas\n \nin\n \nultrasonography,\n \nand\n \nabout\n \n16%\n \nhad\n \nfeatures\n \nof\n \npelvic\n \ncongestion.\n \nAnd\n \n50%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nnormal\n \nultrasonography\n \nreports.\n \n \nBut\n \nall\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriosis,\n \nwhich\n \nwas\n \ndiagnosed\n \nby\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy.\n \nThis\n \nshows\n \nthat\n \nabout\n \n50%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nhave\n \nno\n \nfindings\n \nin\n \nUSG\n \nreports,\n \nproving\n \nUSG\n \nis\n \nnot\n \na\n \nsensitive\n \ndiagnostic\n \nmodality\n \nfor\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \n \nTable\n \n9:\n \nDistribution\n \nof\n \nclinical\n \nfeatures\n \nin\n \nendometriosis\n \nClinical\n \nFeatures\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nChronic\n \nPelvic\n \nPain\n \n43\n \n86%\n \nInfertility\n \n37\n \n74%\n \nMenstrual\n \nComplaints\n \n36\n \n72%\n \nDysparunia\n \n15\n \n30%\n \n \nThe\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \ncomplaints\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatient\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nwere\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \nwith\n \nabout\n \n86%\n \nprevalence\n \nrate,\n \nfollowed\n \nby\n \ninfertility\n \nwhich\n \nwas\n \nabout\n \n74%,\n \nand\n \nmenstrual\n \ncomplaints,\n \nwhich\n \nwere\n \n72%\n \n \nTable\n \n10:\n \nDistribution\n \nof\n \nclinical\n \nfeatures\n \nin\n \nendometriosis\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nage\n \ngroups\n \nAge\n \nGroup\n \nInfertility\n \nChronic\n \nPelvic\n \nPain\n \nMenstrual\n \nComplaints\n \n15\n-\n \n20\n \n1\n \n3\n \n3\n \n21\n-\n25\n \n8\n \n11\n \n9\n \n26\n-\n30\n \n20\n \n18\n \n15\n \n31\n-\n35\n \n7\n \n9\n \n8\n \n>35\n \n1\n \n2\n \n1\n \n \nAge\n-\nwise\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \nclinical\n \nfeatures\n \nshows\n \nthat\n \nthe\n \nprevalence\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nis\n \nmore\n \ncommon\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nbetween\n \n26\n-\n30\n \nyears,\n \nwith\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \nbeing\n \nthe\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \nclinical\n \nfeature.\n \nStudy\n \nshows\n \nthat\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nbetween\n \n26\n-\n30,\n \nmaximum\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \ninfertility,\n \nfollowed\n \nby\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \nand\n \nmenstrual\n \nsymptoms.\n \n \n \n \n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n253 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n \n \nTable\n \n11:\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nfindings\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nFindings\n \nAdhesions\n \nEndometriotic\n \npatches\n \nEndometrioma\n \nFrequency\n \n22\n \n13\n \n22\n \nPercentage\n \n44%\n \n26%\n \n44%\n \n \nIn\n \nthis\n \nstudy,\n \nwhen\n \na\n \npatient\n \ncame\n \nwith\n \ncomplaints\n \nof\n \ninfertility,\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \nand\n \nwith\n \nmenstrual\n \ncomplaints,\n \na\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nfor\n \ndiagnosis,\n \nwhen\n \nthe\n \nimaging\n \nmodality\n \nproved\n \ninefficient\n \nin\n \ndiagnosing\n \nthe\n \ncondition.\n \n \nOn\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy,\n \nfindings\n \nwere\n \nof\n \nadhesions,\n \nendometriomas,\n \nand\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \non\n \nthe\n \nabdominal\n \nand\n \npelvic\n \nwalls\n \nand\n \non\n \npelvic\n \norgans\n \nin\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \ndeep\n \ninfiltrating\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \nA\n \nmaximum\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \npatients,\n \n24\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \nhad\n \nintra\n-\nabdominal\n \nadhesions,\n \nto\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \nand\n \nabdominal\n \nwalls,\n \ndistorting\n \npelvic\n \nanatomy.\n \nSome\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nflimsy\n \nadhesions\n \nwhere\n \nadhesiolysis\n \nwas\n \ndone,\n \nand\n \nothers\n \nhad\n \ndense\n \nadhesions\n \nwith\n \nbowel\n \nand\n \nomentum.\n \n \n22\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriomas,\n \nwhere\n \ninfertility\n \nwas\n \nthe\n \nmaximum.\n \nThe\n \novarian\n \nchocolate\n \ncysts\n \nwere\n \neither\n \naspirated\n \nor\n \nexcised\n \nand\n \nremoved\n \nlaparoscopically.\n \n13\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nhad\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \nfor\n \nwhich\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nfulguration\n \nwas\n \ndone.\n \nThese\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \ninclude\n \npowder\n-\nburnt\n \npatches,\n \nblack\n-\ncolored\n \npatches,\n \nand\n \nfirey\n \npatches.\n \n \n \n \nT\nable\n \n12:\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nfindings\n \nin\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \nLaparoscopic Findings\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nEndometrioma\n \n21\n \n42%\n \nEndometriotic Patches\n \n10\n \n20%\n \nAdhesions\n \n19\n \n38%\n \n \nWhen\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nin\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \n42%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriomas,\n \n38%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \non\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \nand\n \nabdominal\n \nwall,\n \nand\n \n20%\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nhad\n \nadhesions\n \n \n \n \n \nTable\n \n13:\n \nL\naparoscopic\n \nfindings\n \nin\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nmenstrual\n \nsymptoms\n \nLaparoscopic Findings\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nEndometrioma\n \n18\n \n36%\n \nEndometriotic Patches\n \n9\n \n18%\n \nAdhesions\n \n13\n \n26%\n \nIn\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nmenstrual\n \ncomplains\n \nsuch\n \nas\n \ndysmenorrhoea,\n \noligomenorrhoea\n \nor\n \nmenorrhagia\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \n36%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriomas,\n \n18%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \non\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \nand\n \nabdominal\n \nwall,\n \nand\n \n26%\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nhad\n \nadhesions\n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n254 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \n \n \nTable\n \n14:\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nFindings\n \nin\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \ninfertility\n \nLaparoscopic Findings\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nEndometrioma\n \n13\n \n26%\n \nEndometriotic Patches\n \n10\n \n20%\n \nAdhesions\n \n20\n \n40%\n \n \nIn\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \ninfertility\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \n26%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriomas,\n \nhampering\n \nfolliculogenesis,\n \n20%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \non\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \nand\n \nabdominal\n \nwall,\n \nand\n \n40%\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nhad\n \nadhesions.\n \nDense\n \nadhesions\n \nleading\n \nto\n \ndistortion\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npelvic\n \nanatomy\n \nis\n \nthe\n \nleading\n \ncause\n \nof\n \ninfertility\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy.\n \n \n \n \nTable\n \n15:\n \nModality\n \nof\n \ntreatment\n \nreceived\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \nAge\n \nGroups\n \nLaparoscopically\n \nMedical Management\n \nNo. of Patient\n \n40\n \n10\n \nPercentage\n \n80%\n \n20%\n \n \nIn\n \nthis\n \nstudy,\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients,\n \n40\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nwere\n \nmanaged\n \nlaparoscopically,\n \naccounting\n \nfor\n \n80%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ncases,\n \nand\n \n10%\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nrequired\n \nmedical\n \nmanagement.\n \n \n \n \n \nTable\n \n16\n:\n \nD\nistribution\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nthe\n \ntype\n \nof\n \ninfertility\n \namong\n \ncases\n \nType\n \nof\n \ninfertility\n \nFrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nPrimary\n \n22\n \n59.46%\n \nSecondary\n \n15\n \n40.54%\n \n \nOut\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients,\n \n37\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nhad\n \ninfertility,\n \nmaking\n \nit\n \n74%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ncases.\n \n59.46%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nof\n \nprimary\n \ninfertility,\n \nand\n \n40.54%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nwith\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility.\n \n \n \n \n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n255 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nTable 17:\n \nDistribution of the cases according to the severity \nof endometriosis\n \nSeverity\n \nof\n \ndisease\n \nFrequency\n \nPresent\n \nstudy\n \nMild\n \n(stage\n \nI\n \n&\n \nII)\n \n7\n \n14%\n \nModerate\n \n(stage\n \nIII)\n \n21\n \n42%\n \nSevere\n \n(stage\n \nIV)\n \n22\n \n44%\n \n \nStaging\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ndiseases\n \ndone\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nthe\n \ntype\n \nof\n \nlesions\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nfound\n \nlaparoscopically,\n \nas\n \nper\n \nASRM.\n \nOur\n \nstudy\n \nrevealed\n \nthat\n \n44%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nsevere\n \nendometriosis,\n \nwhich\n \nincluded\n \ndeep\n \ninfiltrating\n \nlesions,\n \nand\n \ndense\n \nadhesions\n \nwith\n \nendometriomas.\n \n \n42%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \na\n \nmoderate\n \ntype\n \nof\n \ndisease\n \nwhich\n \nincluded\n \ndense\n \nadhesions\n \nand\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches.\n \n14%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nmild\n \ndisease,\n \nincluding\n \nonly\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nwalls\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npelvis\n \nand\n \nabdomen.\n \n \n \nTable\n \n18\n:\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nprocedure\n \ndone\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \nDiagnosis\n \nProcedure\n \nfrequency\n \nPercentage\n \nAdhesions\n \nAdhesiolysis\n \n16\n \n32%\n \nEndometriotic\n \npatches\n \nFulguration\n \n6\n \n12%\n \nEndometrioma\n \nCyst\n \naspiration\n \n22\n \n44%\n \nAll\n \ntypes\n \nof\n \nlesions\n \nMedical\n \nmanagement\n \n15\n \n30%\n \n \nIn\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \nLaparoscopy\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nfor\n \ndiagnosis\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nconditions\n \nleading\n \nto\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \ninfertility,\n \nand\n \nmenstrual\n \nsymptoms.\n \nThen\n \nlesions\n \nfound\n \nwere\n \ndiagnosed\n \nand\n \nwere\n \ntreated\n \nin\n \nsame\n \nsetting,\n \nwithout\n \nrequiring\n \nadditional\n \nanesthesia\n \nor\n \nother\n \nwork\n-\nup.\n \n \nAdhesiolysis\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nin\n \n30%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy,\n \ni.e.\n \n16\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \nparticipants.\n \nCyst\n \naspiration\n \nwith\n \nsos\n \ncystectomy\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nin\n \n22\n \nout\n \nof\n \n50\n \npatients\n \naccounting\n \nfor\n \n44%\n \ncases\n.\n \nFulguration\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nin\n \n6\n \npatients\n \nfor\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches.\n \n30%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nreceived\n \nmedical\n \nmanagement\n \nalong\n \nwith\n \nsurgical.\n \n \nPost\n \noperatively\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nminimal\n \nhospital\n \nstay\n \nof\n \n3\n \ndays,\n \nfollowing\n \nwhich\n \nthey\n \nwere\n \ndischarged\n \nunder\n \nstable\n \nconditions.\n \n \n \n \n4.\n \nDiscussion\n \n \n1)\n \nStudies\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nage\n \nwise\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \nAccording\n \nto\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \nthe\n \nmost\n \ncommonly\n \naffected\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nwas\n \n24\n-\n26\n \nyears,\n \naccounting\n \nfor\n \nabout\n \n32%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ncases,\n \nfollowed\n \nby\n \nthe\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nof\n \n30\n-\n32\n \nyears\n \nand\n \n24\n-\n26\n \nyears.\n \n \nAccording\n \nto\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nVandana\n \nK\n \nSaini\n \net,\n \nal,\n \nin\n \nDecember\n \n2013,\n \nmost\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nbelonged\n \nto\n \n27\n-\n29\n \nyears\n \n(37%).\n \nThe\n \nsecond\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \naffected\n \nwas\n \n30\n-\n32(27%).\n \n \n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n256 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSujata\n \nSwain\n \net\n \nal,\n \nthe\n \ncommon\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nfound\n \nto\n \nbe\n \naffected\n \nby\n \nendometriosis\n \nis\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nrange\n \nof\n \n31\n-\n35\n \nyears,\n \ncomprising\n \n32.69%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \npopulation,\n \nfollowed\n \nby\n \n26\n-\n30\n \nyears\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \ncomprising\n \n30.77%.\n \nThe\n \nthird\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nis\n \n21\n-\n25\n \nyears\n \ncomprising\n \n19.24%.\n \nA\n \nsignificantly\n \nless\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \npeople\n \naged\n \nabove\n \n35\n \nyears\n \nare\n \naffected\n \nby\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nRajeshwari\n \nM\n \net\n \nal,\n \nthe\n \nfrequency\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nwas\n \nhighly\n \nobserved\n \nbetween\n \nthe\n \nage\n \ngroup\n \nof\n \n26\n-\n30\n \nyears\n \nold,\n \npresenting\n \nwith\n \nan\n \nincrease\n \nin\n \nprimary\n \ninfertility,\n \nfollowed\n \nby\n \n31\n \n–\n \n35\n \nyears.\n \n \nAge\n \ngroups\n \nPresent\n \nstudy\n \nVandana\n \nSaini et, al\n \nSujata\n \nSwain\n \net\n \nal\n1\n6\n \nMohan \nRajeshwari, \net \nal\n18\n \n15\n-\n20\n \n6%\n \n10 \n%\n \n-\n \n18%\n \n21\n-\n25\n \n24%\n \n26 \n%\n \n19.24%\n \n26\n-\n30\n \n42%\n \n37 \n%\n \n30.77%\n \n37%\n \n31\n-\n35\n \n24%\n \n27 \n%\n \n32.69%\n \n31%\n \n>35\n \n4%\n \n17.3%\n \n14%\n \n \n2)\n \nStudies\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nparity\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients.\n \nIn\n \nthe\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \ncases\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nparity,\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nVandana\n \nSaini,\n \net\n \nal,\n \n80%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nnulligravida\n \nsuffering\n \nfrom\n \ninfertility\n \nwhich\n \nwas\n \ndiagnosed\n \nduring\n \ninvestigations,\n \nand\n \nonly\n \n7%\n \nwere\n \nmultipara.\n \n \nIn\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \n52%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nnullipara,\n \nand\n \n34%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \nmultipara.\n \n \nParity\n \nPresent study\n \nVandana Saini et, al\n \nNullipara\n \n52%\n \n80%\n \nPrimipara\n \n14%\n \n13%\n \nMultipara\n \n34%\n \n7%\n \n \nStudies\n \nshowing\n \nthe\n \nseverity\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \npatients.\n \nDistribution\n \nof\n \ndisease\n \nin\n \npatients\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nseverity\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nASRM\n \nclassification,\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy\n \nrevealed\n \nthat\n \n44%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nstage\n \nIII\n \nendometriosis\n \nwith\n \nmultiple\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches\n \nand\n \ndense\n \nadhesions.\n \n42%\n \nhad\n \nstage\n \nIV,\n \ni.e.,\n \nsevere\n \nendometriosis,\n \nand\n \n14%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nmild\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nVandana\n \nSaini,\n \net,\n \nal,\n \n47%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nmoderate\n \nendometriosis,\n \n43%\n \nhad\n \nmild\n \ndisease,\n \nand\n \nonly\n \n10%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nsevere\n \nendometriosis.\n \n \nSeverity\n \nof\n \ndisease\n \nPresent\n \n \nstudy\n \nSujata\n \nswain\n \net\n \nal\n16\n \nVandana\n \nSaini,\n \net,\n \nal\n \nMild\n \n14%\n \n75%\n \n43%\n \nModerate\n \n42%\n \n21.2\n \n47%\n \nsevere\n \n44%\n \n3.8\n \n10%\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSujata\n \nSwain,\n \nStage\n \nI\n \nand\n \nII\n \nendometriosis,\n \ni.e\n \nmild\n \ntype\n \nwas\n \nseen\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nmaximum\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \ncases\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \ngroup\n \ncomprising\n \n75%\n \nof\n \npatients.\n \nThe\n \nsecond\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \nis\n \nstage\n \nIII\n \n(moderate)\n \nwith\n \n21.2%\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nleast\n \ncommon\n \nis\n \nstage\n \nIV\n \nwith\n \n3.8%\n \n(Table\n \n6).\n \nThe\n \nmost\n \ncommonly\n \nassociated\n \npathology\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \ngroup\n \nwas\n \nfound\n \nto\n \nbe\n \nhydrosalpinx\n \ncomprising\n \n11.6%\n \nof\n \ncases.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSujata\n \nSwain,\n \nStage\n \nI\n \nand\n \nII\n \nendometriosis,\n \ni.e,\n \nmild\n \ntype,\n \nwas\n \nseen\n \nin\n \na\n \nmaximum\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \ncases\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nstudy\n \ngroup\n \ncomprising\n \n75%\n \nof\n \npatients.\n \nThe\n \nsecond\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \nis\n \nstage\n \nIII\n \n(moderate),\n \nwith\n \n21.2%,\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nleast\n \ncommon\n \nis\n \nstage\n \nIV,\n \nwith\n \n3.8%\n \n(Table\n \n6).\n \nThe\n \nmost\n \ncommon\n \nassociated\n \npathology\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \ngroup\n \nwas\n \nfound\n \nto\n \nbe\n \nhydrosalpinx\n \ncomprising\n \n11.6%\n \nof\n \ncases.\n \n \n3)\n \nStudies\n \nshowing\n \ntypes\n \nof\n \ninfertility\n \nin\n \nendometriosis\n \nIn\n \nthe\n \npresent\n \nstudy,\n \nabout\n \n74%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ncases\n \nhad\n \ninfertility,\n \nout\n \nof\n \nwhich\n \n59.46%\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nprimary\n \ninfertility,\n \nand\n \n40.54%\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nby\n \nSahu\n \nL\n \net\n \nal,\n \n84.6%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nprimary\n \ninfertility,\n \nand\n \n15.4%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility.\n \nVineet\n \nV\n \nMishra\n \nconducted\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nin\n \n2015\n \nwhere,\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nlaparoscopically\n \ndiagnosed\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nwere\n \nevaluated,\n \nin\n \nwhich\n \n75%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatient\n \nhad\n \nprimary\n \ninfertility\n \nand\n \n25%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility.\n \n \nClinical\n \nfeatures\n \nPresent\n \n \nstudy\n \nSara\n-\nMichelle\n \nGratton\n \net\n \nal\n19\n \nSujata\n \nswain\n \net\n \nal\n16\n \nChronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \n86%\n \n41.7%\n \n6.2%\n \nMenstrual\n \ncomplains\n \n72%\n \n63.6%\n \n67.6%\n \nInfertility\n \n74%\n \n8.3%\n \n20%\n \nothers\n \n20%\n \n-\n \n6.2%\n \n \n4)\n \nStudies\n \naccording\n \nto\n \nthe\n \ndistribution\n \nof\n \nclinical\n \nfeatures\n \nin\n \nendometriosis.\n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSujata\n \nSwain\n \net\n \nal,\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \ndysmenorrhea\n \naffected\n \n67.6%\n \npopulation\n \nin\n \nthis\n \nstudy\n \ngroup.\n \n20%\n \nof\n \npatients\n \npresented\n \nwith\n \ninfertility.\n \nOut\n \nof\n \n13\n \npatients,\n \n8\n \nhad\n \nprimary\n \ninfertility\n \nand\n \n5\n \nhad\n \nsecondary\n \ninfertility.\n \nCommon\n \ncomplaints\n \nwere\n \ndyspareunia\n \nand\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \ncomprising\n \n6.2%\n \neach.\n \n \nOur\n \nstudy\n \nshows,\n \nthat\n \n86%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \ncame\n \nwith\n \ncomplaints\n \nof\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \nsome\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nwith\n \nco\n-\nexisting\n \nmenstrual\n \ncomplaints\n \nand\n \ninfertility,\n \nhence\n \ninfertility\n \nwas\n \nseen\n \nin\n \n74%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nand\n \nmenstrual\n \ncomplaints\n \nin\n \n72%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients.\n \n \nProcedures\n \nPresent\n \nstudy\n \nSujata\n \nswain\n \net\n \nal\n16\n \nSahu\n \nL\n \net\n \nal\n17\n \nVandana\n \nSaini\n \net,\n \nal\n \nCyst\n \naspiration/\n \ncystectomy\n \n44%\n \n59.6%\n \n69.2%\n \n17%\n \nadhesiolysis\n \n32%\n \n30.8%\n \n84.6%\n \n53%\n \nfulguration\n \n12%\n \n49.6%\n \n30.8%\n \n30%\n \nothers\n \n30%\n \n25%\n \n-\n \n-\n \n \nA\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSara\n-\nMichelle\n \nGratton\n \nshows\n \nthat\n \ncommon\n \nsymptoms\n \nwere\n \nabdominal\n \nand\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \n(41.7%),\n \nmenstrual\n \nbleeding\n \nconcerns\n \n(34.4%),\n \ndysmenorrhea\n \n(29.2%),\n \nand\n \ninfertility\n \n(8.3%).\n \n \nComparison\n \nof\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nprocedures\n \ndone\n \nfor\n \ntreating\n \nendometriosis\n \n \nIn\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \n44%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatient\n \nunderwent\n \ncyst\n \naspiration\n \nsos\n \ncystectomy.\n \nIn\n \n32%\n \nof\n \npatients,\n \nadhesiolysis\n \nwas\n \ndone,\n \nand\n \nin\n \n12%\n \nof\n \npatients,\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nfulguration\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nlesions\n \nwas\n \ndone.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSujata\n \nswain,\n \nOut\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ntotal\n \nof\n \n35\n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n257 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \npatients\n \nwith\n \novarian\n \nendometrioma,\n \n27\n \nneeded\n \ncystectomy,\n \ncomprising\n \n77.2%\n \npopulation.\n \n4\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \ntreated\n \nwith\n \nsimple\n \npuncture\n \nand\n \ndrainage,\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nrest\n \n4\n \npatients\n \nneeded\n \noophorectomy,\n \ncomprising\n \n11.4%\n \neach.\n \nA\n \ntotal\n \nof\n \n7\n \npatients\n \nout\n \nof\n \n52\n \nhad\n \nundergone\n \nLaparoscopy\n \nAssisted\n \nVaginal\n \nHysterectomy\n \n(LAVH).\n \nOn\n \nthe\n \nfirst\n \nsitting\n \nof\n \nlaparoscopy,\n \nthey\n \nwere\n \ndiagnosed\n \nwith\n \nendometriosis\n \nand\n \nclassified\n \nas\n \nper\n \nASRM\n \nclassification.\n \n2\n \ncases\n \nwere\n \nstage\n \nII\n \nendometriosis,\n \nand\n \n5\n \nwere\n \nstage\n \nIII.\n \nThen\n \nthey\n \nwere\n \ntreated\n \nwith\n \n2\n \nor\n \n3\n \ndoses\n \nof\n \nInjection\n \nLeuprolide\n \n(3.75mg)\n \ni.m.\n \nand\n \nagain\n \nplanned\n \nfor\n \ntherapeutic\n \nlaparoscopy.\n \nOn\n \nthe\n \nsecond\n \nsitting,\n \n5\n \nhad\n \nundergone\n \nLAVH,\n \nand\n \nthe\n \nrest\n \n2\n \nhad\n \nundergone\n \nLAVH\n \nwith\n \nBilateral\n \nSalpingoOphorectomy\n \n(BSO).\n \n3\n \ncases\n \nhad\n \nfibroid\n \nuterus.\n \n \nIn\n \nour\n \nstudy,\n \na\n \nmaximum\n \nnumber\n \nof\n \npatients\n \nhad\n \na\n \nsevere\n \ntype\n \nof\n \nendometriosis,\n \ni.e,\n \nstage\n \nIV;\n \nhence\n \nmaximum\n \npatients\n \nwere\n \ntreated\n \nby\n \nlaparoscopic\n \ncyst\n \naspiration\n \nor\n \ncystectomy\n \naccounting\n \nfor\n \n44%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients.\n \nPatients\n \nalso\n \nhad\n \nco\n-\n \nexisting\n \nadhesions\n \nand\n \nendometriotic\n \npatches;\n \nhence,\n \n32%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nunderwent\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nadhesiolysis,\n \nand\n \n12%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatient\n \nunderwent\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nfulguration.\n \nAbout\n \n30%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nrequired\n \nmedical\n \nmanagement\n \npost\n-\nsurgery.\n \nInjection\n \nleuprolide\n \n3.75\n \nmg\n \ngiven\n \nintramuscularly,\n \nmonthly\n \nfor\n \n3\n \nmonths.\n \nOthers\n \nwere\n \ngiven\n \noral\n \ncombined\n \ncontraceptive\n \npills.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nSahu\n \nL\n \net\n \nal,\n \n69.2%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatient\n \nunderwent\n \nlaparoscopic\n \ncystectomy,\n \nand\n \nin\n \n84.6%n\n \ncases,\n \nadhesiolysis\n \nwas\n \ndone\n \nin\n \nall\n \ncases\n \nwhere\n \ntubo\n \novarian\n \nrelationship\n \nwas\n \nmaintained\n \nfollowing\n \nadhesiolysis.\n \nAnd\n \nin\n \n30.8%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ncases,\n \nlaparos\n \ncopic\n \nfulguration\n \nof\n \nendometriotic\n \ndeposits\n \nwas\n \ndone.\n \nPostoperatively\n \ninjection\n \nof\n \nLeuprolide\n \n3.75\n \nmg\n \nmonthly\n \nwas\n \ngiven\n \nto\n \nalmost\n \nall\n \ncases.\n \n \nIn\n \na\n \nstudy\n \nconducted\n \nby\n \nVandana\n \nSaini,\n \net,al;\n \nin\n \n2013,\n \n53%\n \nof\n \nthe\n \npatients\n \nunderwent\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nFulguration\n \nof\n \nthe\n \nlesion,\n \n30%\n \nunderwent\n \ncystectomy,\n \nand\n \n17%\n \nof\n \nthem\n \nunderwent\n \nadhesiolysis.\n \n \nConflict\n \nof\n \nInterest:\n \nNone\n \n \n5.\n \nConclusion\n \n \nEndometriosis\n \nshould\n \nbe\n \nconsidered\n \nin\n \nany\n \nwoman\n \nof\n \nreproductive\n \nage\n \npresenting\n \nwith\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain,\n \ndysmenorrhea,\n \nor\n \ninfertility.\n \nLaparoscopy\n \nremains\n \nthe\n \ngold\n \nstandard\n \nfor\n \nboth\n \ndiagnosing\n \nand\n \ntreating\n \nendometriosis,\n \nas\n \nmost\n \nendometriotic\n \nlesions\n \nare\n \nnot\n \ndetectable\n \nthrough\n \nimaging\n \nmodalities,\n \nunderscoring\n \nthe\n \nlimitations\n \nof\n \nimaging\n \nin\n \ndiagnosing\n \nthis\n \ncondition.\n \n \nWhen\n \nendometriosis\n \nis\n \nidentified\n \nduring\n \nlaparoscopy,\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nsurgery\n \nshould\n \nbe\n \nthe\n \npreferred\n \ntreatment,\n \nparticularly\n \nfor\n \nwomen\n \nof\n \nreproductive\n \nage\n \nwith\n \nendometriomas.\n \nProcedures\n \nsuch\n \nas\n \ncystectomy\n \nor\n \naspiration\n \nmay\n \nbe\n \nundertaken,\n \nwith\n \nan\n \nemphasis\n \non\n \nactively\n \naddressing\n \nendometriosis\n \nduring\n \nthe\n \ndiagnostic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nitself.\n \nThe\n \ngoal\n \nshould\n \nbe\n \nthe\n \ncomplete\n \nremoval\n \nof\n \nall\n \nvisible\n \nlesions\n \nto\n \noptimize\n \noutcomes.\n \n \nTherapeutic\n \nlaparoscopic\n \nsurgery\n \nis\n \nparticularly\n \nbeneficial\n \nfor\n \ninfertile\n \nwomen\n \nwith\n \nmoderate\n \nto\n \nsevere\n \nendometriosis.\n \nWhile\n \nthe\n \nsurgical\n \ntreatment\n \nis\n \ntechnically\n \ncomplex,\n \nit\n \nis\n \nhighly\n \nrewarding\n \nfor\n \npatients,\n \noffering\n \nrelief\n \nfrom\n \nsymptoms\n \nand\n \nimproving\n \nfertility\n \nprospects.\n \n \nIn\n \nthis\n \nstudy,\n \nall\n \ncases\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nwere\n \ndiagnosed\n \nvia\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nand\n \ntreated\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nsame\n \nsession\n \nusing\n \nminimally\n \ninvasive\n \ntechniques,\n \nreinforcing\n \nits\n \nstatus\n \nas\n \nthe\n \ngold\n \nstandard\n \nfor\n \nboth\n \ndiagnosis\n \nand\n \ntreatment.\n \n \nEndometriosis\n \nis\n \na\n \nchronic,\n \ndebilitating\n \ncondition\n \nthat\n \nnot\n \nonly\n \ncauses\n \nphysical\n \npain\n \nbut\n \nalso\n \ncarries\n \nthe\n \nsocial\n \nburden\n \nof\n \ninfertility.\n \nFor\n \npatients\n \nstruggling\n \nwith\n \nthis\n \ncondition,\n \nlaparoscopy\n \noffers\n \na\n \ntransformative\n \nsolution,\n \nimproving\n \ntheir\n \nhealth,\n \nquality\n \nof\n \nlife,\n \nand\n \noverall\n \nwell\n-\nbeing.\n \n \nReferences\n \n \n[1]\n \nWorld\n \nHealth\n \nOrganization\n \n(WHO).\n \nInternational\n \nClassification\n \nof\n \nDiseases,\n \n11th\n \nRevision\n \n(ICD\n-\n11)\n \nGeneva:\n \nWHO\n \n2018.\n \n[2]\n \nZondervan\n \nKT,\n \nBecker\n \nCM,\n \nMissmer\n \nSA.\n \nEndometriosis.\n \nN\n \nEngl\n \nJ\n \nMed\n \n2020;\n \n382:1244\n-\n56.\n \n[3]\n \nAgarwal\n \nSK,\n \nChapron\n \nC,\n \nGiudice\n \nLC,\n \net\n \nal.\n \nClinical\n \ndiagnosis\n \nof\n \nendometriosis:\n \na\n \ncall\n \nto\n \naction.\n \nAm\n \nJ\n \nObstet\n \nGynecol\n \n2019(4):354\n-\n64.\n \n[4]\n \nJohnson\n \nNP,\n \nHummelshoj\n \nL,\n \nWorld\n \nEndometriosis\n \nSociety\n \nMontpellier\n \nConsortium.\n \nConsensus\n \non\n \ncurrent\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nendometriosis.\n \nHum\n \nReprod\n \n2013;28(6):1552\n-\n68.\n \n[5]\n \nHorne\n \nAW,\n \nSaunders\n \nPTK,\n \nAbokhrais\n \nIM,\n \net\n \nal.\n \nTop\n \nten\n \nendometriosis\n \nresearch\n \npriorities\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nUK\n \nand\n \nIreland.\n \nLancet\n \n2017;\n \n389:2191\n-\n92.\n \n[6]\n \nJohnson\n \nNP,\n \nHummelshoj\n \nL,\n \nAdamson\n \nGD,\n \net\n \nal.\n \nWorld\n \nEndometriosis\n \nSociety\n \nconsensus\n \non\n \nthe\n \nclassification\n \nof\n \nendometriosis.\n \nHum\n \nReprod\n \n2017;32(2):315\n-\n24.\n \n[7]\n \nWen\n \nX,\n \nXiong\n \nY,\n \nQu\n \nX,\n \net\n \nal.\n \nThe\n \nrisk\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nafter\n \nexposure\n \nto\n \nendocrine\n-\ndisrupting\n \nchemicals:\n \na\n \nmeta\n-\nanalysis\n \nof\n \n30\n \nepidemiology\n \nstudies.\n \nGynecol\n \nEndocrinol\n \n2019;(35):645\n-\n50.\n \n[8]\n \nNnoaham\n \nK,\n \nHummelshoj\n \nL,\n \nWebster\n \nP,\n \net\n \nal.\n \nImpact\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \non\n \nquality\n \nof\n \nlife\n \nand\n \nwork\n \nproductivity:\n \na\n \nmulticenter\n \nstudy\n \nacross\n \nten\n \ncountries.\n \nFertil\n \nSteril\n \n2011;96(2):366\n-\n73.\n \ne8.\n \n[9]\n \nCulley\n \nL,\n \nLaw\n \nC,\n \nHudson\n \nN,\n \net\n \nal.\n \nThe\n \nsocial\n \nand\n \npsychological\n \nimpact\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \non\n \nwomen's\n \nlives:\n \na\n \ncritical\n \nnarrative\n \nreview.\n \nHum\n \nReprod\n \nUpdate,\n \n2013;19(6):625\n-\n639.\n \n[10]\n \nCarey\n \nET,\n \nTill\n \nSR,\n \nAs\n-\nSanie\n \nS.\n \nPharmacological\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nchronic\n \npelvic\n \npain\n \nin\n \nwomen.\n \nDrugs\n \n2017;\n \n77:285\n-\n301.\n \n[11]\n \nOnwuchekwa\n \nCR,\n \nOriji\n \nVK:\n \nHysterosalpingographic\n \n(HSG)\n \npattern\n \nof\n \ninfertility\n \nin\n \nwomen\n \nof\n \nreproductive\n \nage.\n \nJ\n \nHum\n \nReprod\n \nSci.\n \n2017,\n \n10:178\n-\n \n84.\n \n[12]\n \nKamel\n \nRM:\n \nManagement\n \nof\n \nthe\n \ninfertile\n \ncouple:\n \nan\n \nevidence\n-\nbased\n \nprotocol.\n \nReprod\n \nBiol\n \nEndocrinol.2010,\n \n8:21.\n \n[13]\n \nChalazonitis\n \nA,\n \nTzovara\n \nI,\n \nLaspas\n \nF,\n \nPorfyridis\n \nP,\n \nPtohis\n \nN,\n \nTsimitselis\n \nG:\n \nHysterosalpingography:\n \ntechnique\n \nand\n \napplications.\n \nCurr\n \nProbl\n \nDiagn\n \nRadiol.\n \n2009,\n \n38:199\n-\n205.\n \n[14]\n \nNayak\n \nPK,\n \nMahapatra\n \nPC,\n \nMallick\n \nJ,\n \nSwain\n \nS,\n \nMitra\n \nS,\n \nSahoo\n \nJ:\n \nRole\n \nof\n \ndiagnostic\n \nhystero\n-\nlaparoscopy\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n258 \n\nInternational Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)\n \nISSN: 2319\n-\n7064\n \nImpact Factor 2024: 7.101\n \nVolume 14 Issue 4, April 2025\n \nFully Refereed | Open \nAccess | Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal\n \nwww.ijsr.net\n \nevaluation\n \nof\n \ninfertility:\n \nA\n \nretrospective\n \nstudy\n \nof\n \n300\n \npatients.\n \nJ\n \nHum\n \nReprod\n \nSci.\n \n2013,\n \n6:32\n-\n4.\n \n[15]\n \nErhong\n \nZhang,\n \nYanan\n \nZhang,\n \nLi\n \nFang,\n \nQingdong\n \nLi,\n \nJian\n \nGu,\n \nCombined\n \nHysterolaparoscopy\n \nfor\n \nthe\n \nDiagnosis\n \nof\n \nFemale\n \nInfertility:\n \nA\n \nRetrospective\n \nStudy\n \nof\n \n132\n \nPatients\n \nin\n \nChina.\n \n[16]\n \nSwain\n \nS,\n \nJena\n \nPK.\n \nDiagnostic\n \nand\n \ntherapeutic\n \nlaparoscopy\n \nin\n \nthe\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nendometriosis.\n \nInt\n \nJ\n \nReprod\n \nContracept\n \nObstet\n \nGynecol\n \n2018;\n \n7:4695\n-\n700.\n \n[17]\n \nSahu\n \nL,\n \nTempe\n \nA.\n \nLaparoscopic\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \ninfertile\n \nwomen\n \nand\n \noutcome.\n \nInt\n \nJ\n \nReprod\n \nContracept\n \nObstet\n \nGynecol\n \n2013;\n \n2:177\n-\n81.\n \n[18]\n \nMohan\n \nR,\n \nRamanidevi\n \nT,\n \nKadalmani\n \nB.\n \nCohort\n \nstudy\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \nin\n \nsouth\n \nIndian\n \ndistrict.\n \nInt\n \nJ\n \nReprod\n \nContracept\n \nObstet\n \nGynecol\n \n2016;\n \n5:3883\n-\n \n8.\n \n[19]\n \nGratton\n \nSM,\n \nChoudhry\n \nAJ,\n \nVilos\n \nGA,\n \nVilos\n \nA,\n \nBaier\n \nK,\n \nHolubeshen\n \nS,\n \nMedor\n \nMC,\n \nMercier\n \nS,\n \nNguyen\n \nV,\n \nChen\n \nI.\n \nDiagnosis\n \nof\n \nEndometriosis\n \nat\n \nLaparoscopy:\n \nA\n \nValidation\n \nStudy\n \nComparing\n \nSurgeon\n \nVisualization\n \nwith\n \nHistologic\n \nFindings.\n \nJ\n \nObstet\n \nGynaecol\n \nCan.\n \n2022\n \nFeb;44(2):135\n-\n141.\n \ndoi:\n \n10.1016/j.jogc.2021.08.013.\n \nEpub\n \n2021\n \nSep\n \n22.\n \nPMID:\n \n34562632.\n \n[20]\n \nMishra\n \nVV,\n \nGaddagi\n \nRA,\n \nAggarwal\n \nR,\n \nChoudhary\n \nS,\n \nSharma\n \nU,\n \nPatel\n \nU.\n \nPrevalence;\n \ncharacteristics\n \nand\n \nmanagement\n \nof\n \nendometriosis\n \namongst\n \ninfertile\n \nwomen:\n \na\n \none\n-\nyear\n \nretrospective\n \nstudy.\n \nJ\n \nClinic\n \nDiagnos\n \nRes:\n \nJCDR.\n \n2015;9(6):\n \nQC01\n \nPaper ID: SR241216101802\nDOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR241216101802\n259","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}