The role of laparoscopy in the evaluation of chronic pelvic pain: pitfalls with a negative laparoscopy

F M Howard, Fred M. Howard
The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists · 1996 · vol. 4(1) , pp. 85–94 · doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(96)80116-2 · PMID:9050719 · W2024427071
Review OA: hybrid CC0 ⤵ 62 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This paper discusses the diagnostic limitations of laparoscopy in chronic pelvic pain, highlighting inappropriate patient advice given when laparoscopy yields negative findings.

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

Abstract

Laparoscopic findings are negative in anywhere from 10% to 90% of women with chronic pelvic pain. When this occurs a woman is often told one or more of the following: (1) nothing is wrong; (2) the pain is in her head and she should see a psychiatrist; (3) she should have a neurolytic procedure, such as uterine nerve transection or presacral neurectomy; (4) the only thing that is left to do is a hysterectomy; or (5) nothing can be done and she must learn to live with the pain. Usually these statements are inappropriate, often stemming from the mistaken belief that laparoscopy represents the definitive diagnostic end point in the evaluation of a woman with chronic pelvic pain. It is important that gynecologists appreciate that laparoscopy is only one of many possible methods of evaluation and recognize its diagnostic limitations and pitfalls.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Laparoscopy Pelvic Pain Chronic Disease Female Humans Hysterectomy Pelvic Pain Pelvic Pain Pelvic Pain Peripheral Nerves Peripheral Nerves Uterus Uterus

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

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. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (48)

Cited by (50)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T22:00:10.289599+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK