{"paper_id":"963f00fc-a802-457c-9198-07261d815941","body_text":"Abstract\nPurpose\nIdentify a group with a high risk of postoperative complications after deep bowel endometriosis surgery.\nMethods\nWe conducted a retrospective study on patients treated from 2012 to 2018 in two departments of gynecological surgery at the Toulouse University Hospital, France. The postoperative complications were evaluated in relation to the surgical management, associated with or without non-digestive surgical procedures, initial disease and patient's characteristics.\nResults\n164 patients were included. A postoperative complication occurred in 37.8% (n = 62) of the cases and required a secondary surgery in 18.3% (n = 30) of the cases. In the univariate analysis, the risk of postoperative complications increased significantly in the presence of segmental resection, disease progression, and associated urinary tract procedure or vaginal incision.\nIn the multivariate analysis, the risk of overall postoperative complications was associated with the surgical management (p = 0.013 and 0.017) and particularly in the presence of segmental resection [Odds Ratio (OR): 20.87; CI 95% (1.96–221.79)]. The risk of rectovaginal fistula increased in the presence of segmental resection [OR: 22.71; CI 95% (2.74–188.01)] as well as in vaginal incision [OR: 19.67; CI 95% (2.43–159.18); p = 0.005].\nConclusion\nThe risk of overall postoperative complications and rectovaginal fistula in particular increases significantly in the presence of vaginal incision, segmental resection and urinary tract procedures after deep bowel endometriosis surgery.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nde Ziegler D, Borghese B, Chapron C (2010) Endometriosis and infertility: pathophysiology and management. Lancet Lond Engl 376:730–738\nMaignien C et al (2017) Prognostic factors for assisted reproductive technology in women with endometriosis-related infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216(280):e1–280.e9\nPluchino N et al (2016) Sexual function in endometriosis patients and their partners: effect of the disease and consequences of treatment. Hum Reprod Update 22:762–774\nNnoaham KE et al (2011) Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil Steril 96:366–373.e8\nFacchin F et al (2015) Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and mental health: pelvic pain makes the difference. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 36:135–141\nMárki G, Bokor A, Rigó J, Rigó A (2017) Physical pain and emotion regulation as the main predictive factors of health-related quality of life in women living with endometriosis. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 32:1432–1438\nMinelli L et al (2009) Laparoscopic colorectal resection for bowel endometriosis: feasibility, complications, and clinical outcome. Arch Surg Chic 144:234–239 (discussion 239)\nDe Cicco C et al (2011) Bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a systematic review. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 118:285–291\nCoronado C, Franklin RR, Lotze EC, Bailey HR, Valdés CT (1990) Surgical treatment of symptomatic colorectal endometriosis. Fertil Steril 53:411–416\nTran KT, Kuijpers HC, Willemsen WN, Bulten H (1996) Surgical treatment of symptomatic rectosigmoid endometriosis. Eur J Surg Acta Chir 162:139–141\nJerby BL, Kessler H, Falcone T, Milsom JW (1999) Laparoscopic management of colorectal endometriosis. Surg Endosc 13:1125–1128\nRemorgida V, Ferrero S, Fulcheri E, Ragni N, Martin DC (2007) Bowel endometriosis: presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Surv 62:461–470\nBailey HR, Ott MT, Hartendorp P (1994) Aggressive surgical management for advanced colorectal endometriosis. Dis Colon Rectum 37:747–753\nDarai E et al (2005) Feasibility and clinical outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection for endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:394–400\nNyangoh Timoh K et al (2018) Magnetic resonance enterography to assess multifocal and multicentric bowel endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:697–705\nBerlanda N et al (2017) Surgery versus hormonal therapy for deep endometriosis: is it a choice of the physician? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 209:67–71\nMillochau J-C et al (2016) Continuous amenorrhea may be insufficient to stop the progression of colorectal endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23:839–842\nZheng Y et al (2018) Rectovaginal fistula following surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis: does lesion size matter? J Int Med Res 46:852–864\nAbo C et al (2018) Postoperative complications after bowel endometriosis surgery by shaving, disc excision, or segmental resection: a three-arm comparative analysis of 364 consecutive cases. Fertil Steril 109:172–178.e1\nRiiskjær M et al (2017) Diagnostic value of serial measurement of c-reactive protein in the detection of a surgical complication after laparoscopic bowel resection for endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 82:410–416\nOliveira MAP et al (2016) Bowel complications in endometriosis surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 35:51–62\nVallée A et al (2018) Surgery for deep endometriosis without involvement of digestive or urinary tracts: do not worry the patients! Fertil Steril 109:1079–1085.e1\nWorking group of ESGE, ESHRE, and WES et al (2020) Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis. Part 2: deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open 2020:hoaa002\nDindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213\nBelghiti J et al (2014) Role of protective defunctioning stoma in colorectal resection for endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:472–479\nKnabben L et al (2015) Urinary tract endometriosis in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis: prevalence, symptoms, management, and proposal for a new clinical classification. Fertil Steril 103:147–152\nSaavalainen L, Heikinheimo O, Tiitinen A, Härkki P (2016) Deep infiltrating endometriosis affecting the urinary tract-surgical treatment and fertility outcomes in 2004–2013. Gynecol Surg 13:435–444\nErdem S et al (2018) Functional outcomes after rectal resection for deep infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: long-term results. Dis Colon Rectum 61:733–742\nHudelist G et al (2018) Pain and fertility outcomes of nerve-sparing, full-thickness disk or segmental bowel resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis—a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97:1438–1446\nHudelist G et al (2018) Outcome of sonography-based minimally invasive surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis of the ureter and urinary bladder—a retrospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97:277–284\nBendifallah S et al (2018) Impact of hospital and surgeon case volume on morbidity in colorectal endometriosis management: a plea to define criteria for expert centers. Surg Endosc 32:2003–2011\nRoman H (2017) A national snapshot of the surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum and colon in France in 2015: a multicenter series of 1135 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 46:159–165\nKondo W et al (2011) Complications after surgery for deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 118:292–298\nFanfani F et al (2010) Discoid or segmental rectosigmoid resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis: a case-control study. Fertil Steril 94:444–449\nGuo S-W (2009) Recurrence of endometriosis and its control. Hum Reprod Update 15:441–461\nWeir E, Mustard C, Cohen M, Kung R (2005) Endometriosis: what is the risk of hospital admission, readmission, and major surgical intervention? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:486–493\nVignali M et al (2005) Surgical treatment of deep endometriosis and risk of recurrence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:508–513\nFedele L et al (2006) Laparoscopic excision of recurrent endometriomas: long-term outcome and comparison with primary surgery. Fertil Steril 85:694–699\nBusacca M et al (2006) Determinants of long-term clinically detected recurrence rates of deep, ovarian, and pelvic endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:426–432\nMeuleman C et al (2011) Surgical treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement. Hum Reprod Update 17:311–326\nRoman H et al (2016) Long-term functional outcomes following colorectal resection versus shaving for rectal endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(762):e1–762.e9\nJayot A, Nyangoh Timoh K, Bendifallah S, Ballester M, Darai E (2018) Comparison of laparoscopic discoid resection and segmental resection for colorectal endometriosis using a propensity score matching analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:440–446\nFunding\nNo financial support was received for this study.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nContributions\nHG: manuscript writing, data collection, project development, CV: project development, data collection, PL: project development, data collection, AG: data analysis, BA: data collection, project development, PG: data collection, SK: project development, BS: project development, SM: project development, JR: project development, AW: project development, EC: manuscript writing, data collection, project development.\nCorresponding author\nEthics declarations\nConflict of interest\nThe authors hereby declare that there is no conflict of interest.\nEthical approval\nThis article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.\nAll procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\nInformed consent\nInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\nAdditional information\nPublisher's Note\nSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nGornes, H., Vaysse, C., Leguevaque, P. et al. Identification of a group with high risk of postoperative complications after deep bowel endometriosis surgery: a retrospective study on 164 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302, 383–391 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05604-4\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nVersion of record:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05604-4","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}