Excision versus Ablation for Management of Minimal to Mild Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Channing Burks, Burks C, Lee M, Mabel Lee, DeSarno M, Michael DeSarno, Joseph Findley, Findley J, Flyckt R, Rebecca Flyckt
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2020 · vol. 28(3) , pp. 587–597 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.028 · PMID:33310168 · W3110656851
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 13 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared excision and ablation techniques for managing minimal to mild endometriosis, examining their efficacy and outcomes.

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

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to perform an updated analysis of the literature in regard to the surgical management of minimal to mild endometriosis. This study evaluated women of reproductive age with superficial endometriosis to determine if the results of surgical excision compared with those of ablation in improved pain scores postoperatively.Data sourcesThe following databases were searched from inception to May 2020 for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science.Methods of study selectionFrom our literature search, a total of 2633 articles were identified and screened. Ultimately, 4 randomized controlled trials were selected and included in our systematic review. The combined total number of subjects was 346 from these 4 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 24 to 170 participants. Data from 3 of the included studies were able to be compared and analyzed for a meta-analysis. The primary outcome was reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS) score for endometriosis-associated pain (dysmenorrhea, dyschezia, and dyspareunia), with follow-up time ranging from 6 to 60 months postoperatively.Tabulation, integration, and resultsData extracted from each study included the mean reduction in the VAS score from baseline. A random-effects model was used owing to significant heterogeneity across the studies. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The meta-analyses showed no significant differences between the excision and ablation groups in the mean reduction in VAS scores from baseline to 12 months postoperatively for dysmenorrhea (mean difference [MD] -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.27 to 1.22; p = .97), dyschezia (MD 0.46; 95% CI, -1.09 to 2.02; p = .56), and dyspareunia (MD 0.10; 95% CI, -2.36 to 2.56; p = .94). In addition, there were no significant differences between the excision and ablation groups in mean VAS scores at the 12-month follow-up and beyond for dysmenorrhea (MD -0.11; 95% CI, -2.14 to 1.93; p = .92), dyschezia (MD 0.01; 95% CI, -0.70 to 0.72; p = .99), and dyspareunia (MD 0.34; 95% CI, -1.61 to 2.30; p = .73).ConclusionOn the basis of the data from our systematic review and pooled meta-analysis, no significant difference between laparoscopic excision and ablation was noted in regard to improving pain from minimal to mild endometriosis. However, to make definitive conclusions on this topic, larger randomized controlled trials are needed with longer follow-up.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometrial Ablation Techniques Endometriosis Gynecologic Surgical Procedures Laparoscopy Disease Management Endometrial Ablation Techniques Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Gynecologic Surgical Procedures Humans Laparoscopy

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 (35)

Cited by (15)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-28T06:14:09.330459+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:21:30.380497+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK