⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-05
· read from full text
ⓘ
This study assessed the knowledge and confidence levels of general and colorectal surgeons regarding the multidisciplinary management of endometriosis. The researchers surveyed consultant surgeons and trainees to evaluate their understanding of surgical techniques, referral pathways, and postoperative care for patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis affecting the bowel. Results indicated significant variability in confidence levels, with many practitioners feeling inadequately prepared to manage complex cases without specialist input. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — specifically focusing on the educational gaps and clinical understanding among surgeons involved in its treatment.
Abstract
Background: Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) can extend into the rectum or colon, often leading to significant pain, digestive disturbances, and a decline in overall quality of life. Although hormonal therapies can be beneficial, surgery, including colorectal resection, may sometimes be necessary. This study seeks to assess the existing knowledge and clinical experience related to DIE among general and colorectal surgeons of all grades in Ireland. Methods: An anonymous web-based survey was distributed among Irish general surgery trainees and colorectal consultants. Questions regarding undergraduate, post-graduate, and fellowship training were posed along with levels of clinical experience. Results: There were 80 responses from 290 surveyed [24% consultants/76% non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs)]. Of all respondents, 71% received undergraduate training in endometriosis, with 28% receiving postgraduate or fellowship training. Bowel endometriosis in clinical practice was encountered by 94%. Where surgical management of bowel endometriosis was performed, the majority (71%) was managed with combined gynaecological and colorectal input. Consultant experience was at least 6–20 cases in 63% of respondents. The majority agree that subspecialisation for colorectal endometriosis is appropriate, and 71% agree with centralisation of services. Most respondents (73%) would be interested in further targeted formal training in the form of seminars/conferences/hands-on training courses. Conclusions: Endometriosis involving the rectum is encountered by most trainees and consultants at a low volume level in clinical practice. There is a majority response that subspecialisation and centralisation of rectal endometriosis would be appropriate. This study indicates substantial trainee interest in expanding formal educational opportunities in the surgical management of endometriosis.
Full text
1,208 characters
· extracted from
oa-html
· click to expand
AB201. SOH26AB_0121. General and colorectal consultant surgeons’ and trainees’ understanding of the management of endometriosis
Acknowledgments
None.
Footnote
Funding: None.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Cite this abstract as: Clifford S, Dundon N, DeMaio A, O’Neill A, Clancy C. AB201. SOH26AB_0121. General and colorectal consultant surgeons’ and trainees’ understanding of the management of endometriosis. Mesentery Peritoneum 2026;10:AB201.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.