Choosing the right technique for deep endometriosis

review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 13 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08

This paper discusses deep endometriosis and its surgical management, with a focus on choosing the optimal technique based on lesion location and extent.

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

Abstract

The surgical management of bowel endometriosis is a real challenge. In addition to the fact that only symptomatic patients should undergo surgery, no consensus has been approved in the literature. Among the surgical techniques, the surgeon has to choose between rectal shaving, disc excision, or segmental colorectal resection. All those procedures are associated with complications, but the risk of rectovaginal fistula is higher if a disc excision or segmental colorectal resection is performed. It is therefore of utmost importance to evaluate preoperatively the bowel infiltration by several imaging techniques to estimate the feasibility of a deep rectal shaving with possible incomplete removal of the endometriotic lesions or to discuss with the patient about the indication of a segmental bowel resection. Because of the risk of major preoperative and postoperative complications, proper patient counseling is mandatory.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Digestive System Surgical Procedures Endometriosis Endometriosis Laparoscopy Rectal Diseases Rectal Diseases Female Humans Postoperative Complications Rectovaginal Fistula Rectovaginal Fistula Rectum Treatment Outcome

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 (45)

Cited by (16)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-23T09:30:01.253652+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:54.901233+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-23T06:29:45.520198+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK