Controversies in the Management of Endometrioma

Erica B Johnstone, Erica Johnstone, Megan H Link, M Link
Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2015 · vol. 58(4) , pp. 754–764 · doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000151 · PMID:26512440 · W2409376002
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 6 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

Surgical excision improves pelvic pain and may boost spontaneous pregnancy chances, whereas medical treatments primarily address dysmenorrhea, with individualized management considering fertility goals.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Endometriomas are common in reproductive-aged women, but controversy exists regarding their management. PubMed was searched to identify pertinent studies on outcomes of medical and surgical management of endometrioma, with focus on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. Surgical excision is more effective than fenestration/coagulation of endometrioma for pelvic pain but decreases antimullerian hormone. It may modestly improve the chances of spontaneous pregnancy, but does not impact chances of success with in vitro fertilization. Oral contraceptive pills improve dysmenorrhea but not dyspareunia or noncyclic pelvic pain. Management of the patient with endometrioma should be individualized based on each patient's particular symptoms and short-term and long-term fertility goals.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

mesh:D004412mesh:D004414mesh:D004715mesh:D017699endometriomadysmenorrheadyspareunia

MeSH descriptors

Contraceptives, Oral Endometriosis Endometriosis Ovarian Diseases Ovarian Diseases Contraceptives, Oral Dysmenorrhea Dysmenorrhea Dyspareunia Dyspareunia Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Fertility Fertilization in Vitro Humans Infertility, Female Infertility, Female Infertility, Female Meta-Analysis as Topic

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (62)

Cited by (6)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:17:33.600579+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-02T02:00:03.124865+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK