Totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis (TICA) versus classical mini-laparotomy for specimen extraction, after segmental bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a single-center experience

Purpose The surgical approach to bowel endometriosis is still unclear. The aim of the study is to compare TICA to con- ventional specimen extractions and extra-abdominal insertion of the anvil in terms of both complications and functional outcomes.

This is a single-center, observational, retrospective study conducted enrolling symptomatic women underwent laparoscopic excision of deep endometriosis with segmental bowel resection between September 2019 and June 2022. Women who underwent TICA were compared to classical technique (CT) in terms of intra- and postoperative complica- tions, moreover, functional outcomes relating to the pelvic organs were assessed using validated questionnaires [Knowles- Eccersley-Scott-Symptom (KESS) questionnaire and Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI)] for bowel function. Pain symptoms were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores.

The sample included 64 women. TICA was performed on 31.2% (n = 20) of the women, whereas CT was used on 68.8% (n = 44). None of the patients experienced rectovaginal, vesicovaginal, ureteral or vesical fistula, or ureteral stenosis and uroperitoneum, and in no cases was it necessary to reoperate. Regarding the two surgical approaches, no significant difference was observed in terms of complications. As concerns pain symptoms at 6-month follow-up evaluations on strati- fied data, except for dysuria, all VAS scales reported showed significant reductions between median values, for both surgery interventions. As well, significant improvements were further observed in KESS scores and overall GIQLI. Only the GIQLI evaluation was significantly smaller in the TICA group compared to CT after the 6-month follow-up.

We did not find any significant differences in terms of intra- or post-operative complications compared TICA and CT, but only a slight improvement in the Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index in patients who underwent the CT compared to the TICA technique.

Bowel resection · Bowel endometriosis · Intracorporeal anastomosis · Deep endometriosis · Complications · Mini-laparotomy * Pierfrancesco Greco [email protected] 1 Unit of Oncological Gynecology, Women’s Children’s and Public Health Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy 2 Gynecology and Breast Care Center, Mater Olbia Hospital, Olbia, Italy 3 Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy 4 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research Core Facility, Gemelli Generator, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy 5 Surgical Unit of Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy 2698 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 What does this study add to the clinical work This study shows for the first time the functional outcomes and complications of a new surgical tech- nique for intestinal resections for deep endometrio- sis with completely intracorporeal anastomosis and compares them with those of the classic technique.

Deep endometriosis (DE), defined as endometrial glands and stroma infiltrating the peritoneum by at least 5 mm, is the most severe form of endometriosis [1]. Within the DE spectrum, bowel endometriosis has been estimated to affect between 5 and 12% of patients [2]. The rectum and sigmoid are involved in up to 90% of all intestinal lesions [3], and a laparoscopic or robotic resection of the affected part of the bowel may be required in cases of either occlusive symptoms or non-respon- sive medical pain patients [4–6]. In recent years there has been growing interest in the extrac- tion of specimens via transnatural orifices [7–12], i.e. through a transvaginal or transrectal route, thus avoiding the abdomi- nal incisions described in classic techniques (mini-laparotomy), which, though smaller than a laparotomy, can be associated with complications and suboptimal aesthetic results [7, 8]. Currently, even though there are no universal guide- lines recommending which extraction and anastomosis technique should be preferred as an alternative to the classic one, a natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) is the most widely used [9 –12]. In 2021, however, totally intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis (TICA) was described for the first time by our group [13]. It involves the execution of completely intra-abdominal colorectal anastomosis and the extraction of the specimen from the incision used for the 12 mm trocar, which is also used to insert the linear stapler, without a mini-laparotomy. The aim of this study has been to investigate the impact of TICA, compared to conventional specimen extractions and extra-abdominal insertion of the anvil in terms of both com- plications and functional outcomes, in patients who under - went segmental bowel resection for colorectal endometriosis.

Study protocol This is a single-center, observational, retrospective study, which is reported in accordance with the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) guidelines and checklist [14]. We retrieved data sets on symptomatic women who underwent laparoscopic excision of DE with segmental bowel resection between September 2019 and June 2022 from the electronic data- bases and clinical records of the tertiary academic center for Endometriosis of the Fondazione Policlinico-Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in Rome (Italy). Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique used for anastomosis and the extraction of specimens: either the classic technique (CT) or TICA. Pre-operative and post-operative functional outcomes, as well as differences between pre-operative and post-operative ones, were com- pared for the two groups. Ethics statement This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the “Dipartimento Universitario Scienze della Vita e di Sanità Publica” (IRB protocol number DIPUSVSP- PD-07–234) and was carried out in accordance with the Hel- sinki Declaration. During pre-operative evaluation, patients were asked in advance to sign a consent form regarding the subsequent use of their anonymized data. Variables and procedures Segmental bowel resection was performed in cases of patients for whom medical therapy had failed to control symptoms (i.e. progestins or estro-progestins), with simul- taneous bowel obstruction or nodule residue > 3 cm after a shaving technique, or in cases of multiple bowel nodules. All the women had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of endo- metriosis. We excluded all women aged < 18 years, women who had previous discoid or segmental bowel resection for any benign or malignant diseases, or pelvic external beam radiotherapy/brachytherapy, or a concomitant diagnosis of diabetic microangiopathy/vasculopathies. Retrieved data included medical and surgical history from the pre-operative evaluation. Moreover, all the women were subjected to recto-vaginal examination, dedicated trans- vaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography and/or pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. In cases of sub-occlusive symptoms, either a colonoscopy, a double barium enema or a virtual colonoscopy was also required to evaluate ste- nosis. Along with the above, interviews on pain symptoms and questionnaires on gastrointestinal function were also conducted. Specifically, we focused on the main demographic, anthropometric and clinical data (i.e. age, body mass index, and previous surgery), clinical variables (pain and gastroin- testinal symptoms), surgical findings (operating time, esti- mated blood loss, any intraoperative complications, length of resection, distance of the nodule from anal verge, and the 2699Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 need for ileostomy), and peri-operative data (days of hospi- talization, need for self-catheterization, and post-operative complications). Post-operative complications, occurring within 30 days after surgery, were described using the Clavien-Dindo clas- sification [15]. Six months after surgery, patients underwent recto-vaginal evaluation and transvaginal and transabdomi- nal ultrasonography. Interviews regarding pain symptoms and questionnaires were also reassessed (at the six-month follow-up visit). The severity of pain symptoms (dysmen- orrhea, dysuria, dyschezia, and dyspareunia) was assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores (ranging from 0 to 10, i.e. from absence of pain to most severe). Information regarding gastrointestinal functional out- comes was assessed using validated questionnaires: the Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom Questionnaire (KESS) [16] and the Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) [17]. The KESS questionnaire was used to assess bowel function and specifically determine whether the patient suf- fered from constipation (0 to 39 points). We used a cut-off criterion of ≥ 10 points in the total KESS score to define con- stipation [17]. The GIQLI was used to describe the health- related quality of life (QoL) of patients with gastrointestinal disease (0 to 144 points). The questionnaire consists of 36 items and a higher score indicates a better QoL [17]. Uri- nary retention was defined as a post-voiding residual volume of 100 mL. In these cases, self-catheterization was recom- mended until the post-urinary residual volume was < 100 mL at three consecutive measurements. Endpoints and outcome assessment The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate surgical outcomes, such as intra-operative, peri- and post-operative complications in women who underwent segmental bowel resection using the CT or the TICA technique. As secondary endpoints, we looked at gastrointestinal functional outcomes assessed using validated questionnaires, and pain symptoms both at baseline and at 6-month follow-up, to highlight potential improvements after intervention. Furthermore, we evaluated the correlation between functional outcomes at follow-up, by means of KESS and GIQLI questionnaires, and surgical, anthropometric and intra-operative findings. Surgical technique and post‑operative care When preparing for surgery, all patients followed a 5-day residue-free diet and received mechanical bowel prepara- tion in the form of a 4-L split dose of Macrogol: 2 L 2 days before surgery and 2 L the day before surgery. Intravenous cefuroxime and metronidazole were administered intraop- eratively as antibiotic prophylaxis [13]. All patients were operated on by a multidisciplinary sur- gical team highly experienced in the laparoscopic surgical excision of bowel endometriosis, including a gynecologist and a colorectal surgeon. The severity of the disease was intra-operatively classified using the revised American- Fertility-Society (r-ASRM) score [18] and the # ENZIAN classification[19]. In all cases, a laparoscopic surgical approach for poste- rior DE using a nerve-sparing approach was used, as previ- ously published [20–22]. When DE involved the lateral and/ or posterior parametrium, a nerve-sparing parametrectomy was performed, as previously described by our group [1 , 23]. In the case of further ureteral involvement due to the disease, ureterolysis was performed first and, if this failed to solve ureteral infiltration, ureteroneocistostomy was carried out [24, 25]. Segmental bowel resection was performed following the same steps, i.e. a 5 mm trocar was added in the right hypochondrium. Then the peritoneum of the mesosigma was opened above the root of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), as close to the bowel wall as possible. Sigmoid ves- sels, which supply the bowel segment to be resected, were progressively identified and selectively coagulated. The dissection was carried out until the rectal wall below the endometriotic nodule was reached, and then the rectum was transected with a linear stapler, the Echelon Flex™ Endo- path® Stapler (EFES) 60 mm (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA). Colorectal anastomosis was performed by extracting the segment of bowel to be resected through a suprapu- bic mini-Pfannenstiel incision (4–5 cm) and following the classic steps [20, 26], or else with a totally intracorporeal anastomosis procedure (TICA) [27]. The choice of whether to use totally intracorporeal anastomosis (introduced at our institution in 2021) or a mini-Pfannenstiel incision was made at the discretion of the gynecologist and colorectal surgeon. Following the TICA technique, before anastomosis, the anvil of the circular stapling device (EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology, 28 mm or 31 mm Medium/ Thick, Covidien, New Haven, CT, USA) was prepared with a 0 vicryl suture, bound at the hole of the tip (Fig.  1). The anvil was brought into the abdominal cavity through the opening for the 12 mm port in the right abdominal flank. A colotomy was performed at the colonic wall just proximal to the endometriotic nodule, and then the anvil was intro- duced into the colon through the colotomy (Fig.  2). The lin- ear stapler was arranged to include the whole colostomy. The suture attached to the rod of the anvil needed to be held from the superior edge of the colotomy, keeping the vicryl suture 2700 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 out of the linear stapler. The colon was then transected with a linear stapler (Fig.  3) and the anvil extracted through the colon next to the suture line, pulling on the thread tied to it (Fig.  4). Then the circular stapler was introduced in the rec- tum and end-to-end anastomosis was performed. The speci- men was extracted through the 12 mm port on the right flank or through the vagina in cases of hysterectomy. In case of bowel segments with nodules too large to be extracted from a 12 mm incision, the specimen was partially morcellated with cold scissors in an endobag. At the end of the proce- dure, an air leak test was performed to evaluate anastomosis integrity. One drainage was left in place. In the post-opera- tive period, at 3 and 5 post-operative days, a white cell count and C-reactive protein measurement were performed to look at potential early post-operative septic complications. Fast- track diet resumption was followed for nutrition. Statistical analysis Given the retrospective observational nature of the study, it was not essential to resort to a formal determination of the sample size. But taking into account the number of patients who underwent surgery in the reference period and who strictly met the inclusion criteria, it was possible to enroll 64 patients. The sample was described in its clinical and demographic characteristics using descriptive statistical techniques. Spe- cifically, qualitative data sets were expressed as absolute and relative percentage frequencies, whereas quantitative variables as either mean and standard deviations (SD) or median and interquartile ranges (IQR), as appropriate. To verify the Gaussian distribution of quantitative variables, the Shapiro–Wilk test was applied. Pre-post differences in the questionnaires on quality of life were analyzed using the Student’s t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for paired data, as appropriate. Finally, regres- sion modeling was used to compare the pre-post differences between the two intervention techniques (i.e., estimated ∆-change differences), considering the CT as the reference point. Statistical significance was set at p-value < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using R software version 4.2.0 (CRAN ®, R Core 2022).

Table  1 shows the general characteristics of the study sample at baseline, overall and classified by surgery method (TICA vs CT). The sample included 64 women, with a mean age of 38.5 ± 6.1 years, and a median body mass index of 23.0 kg/ m2 (IQR 20.4–24.6). TICA was performed on 31.2% (n = 20) of the women, whereas CT was used on 68.8% (n = 44). Over 32% (n = 21) of the women had previous surgery for Fig. 1 Anvil, prepared with a 0 vicryl suture, bound at the hole of the tip Fig. 2 Anvil introduced through the colotomy perfomed cranially to the endometriotic nodule Fig. 3 The stapler include the colotomy leaving the thread outside from the suture 2701Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 endometriosis without bowel involvement; specifically, 35% (n = 7) in the TICA goup and over 31% (n = 14) in the CT group. Most of patients were classified as stage III and IV according to the American Society for Reproductive Medi- cine (ASRM) guidelines for endometriosis, with no signifi- cative differences between the two groups. Endometriosis was further mapped using the # Enzian Classification, as reported in Table  2. Interventions Table  3 shows the intervention data, both overall and classi- fied by surgery method. The intestinal nodules were mainly single in both techniques, i.e. 80% n = 16 vs the 20% n = 4 that were multiple in the TICA group and 70.5% n = 31 vs the 29.5% n = 13 that were multiple in the CT group, with a mean size of 3.7 cm ± 1.0 (TICA) and 3.5 cm ± 0.7 (CT). In both the groups, the median resected intestinal tract was 8 cm (IQR 6–9) and the parts involved were mainly referred to the rectum (n = 13; 65% for TICA and n = 22; 50% for CT), though in 24 cases (n = 7 TICA, n = 17 CT) there was further association of the sigmoid. Colostomy was not performed on any of the patients, whereas temporary ileostomy was needed in 25% (n = 5) of cases in TICA groups and in 31.8% (n = 14) of cases in CT group. Only in a few cases was salpingo-oophorectomy (mon- olateral and bilateral) performed. Moreover, ureterolysis was performed in 79.5% (n = 35) of patients in the CT group and 65% (n = 13) patients in the TICA groups. The mean operative time was 336.4 ± 77.7 and 353.2 ± 76.7 min for TICA and TC, respectively. A median of 6 days of hospitalization were required overall. Moreover, during intervention the median Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) was 200 mL (IQR 150–300) in the CT group and 250 (IQR 187–300) in TICA group. Ureteral resection or reimplantation was needed in 1 (5.0%) and 2 (4.5%) cases in TICA and CT group, respectively. It is notable that posterolateral parametrectomy was needed in 75% (n = 33) of cases of CT and 90% (n = 18) of the TICA group. The 30.0% (n = 6) TICA patients required a total hysterectomy comparate with the 40.9% (n = 18) patients in the CT group. Finally, as concerns associations between the surgery methods, only the bowel anastomosis provided a significant result (P = 0.011). Intra‑ and post‑operative complications Next, data on intra- and post-operative complications rates are shown in Table 4. All the women had surgery performed in laparoscopy and no conversion was required. The rate of intra-operative complications was extremely low (n = 2; 4.5% in CT vs n = 0 in TICA). Of note, none of the patients experienced rectovaginal, vesicovaginal, ureteral or vesical fistula, or ureteral stenosis and uroperitoneum. In one case (2.3%), hemoperitoneum was reported in the CT group but was treated conservatively. In one case (5.0%), intestinal anastomosis leakage was reported in the CT group, but the patient was underwent to protective ileostomy during the surgery, so she not required a reintervention. No cases of reintervention were recorded, while bladder voiding deficit was observed in 10% of cases (n = 2) in the TICA group and 6.8% (n = 3) in the CT group. Urinary tract infections were observed in 15% (n = 3) in the TICA group and over 11% (n = 5) in the CT group. Regarding the two surgical approaches, no significant dif- ference was observed in terms of complications. Post‑operative evaluation and questionnaires Finally, as concerns pain symptoms at 6-month follow-up evaluations on stratified data, except for dysuria, all VAS scales reported showed significant reductions between median values, with an overall disappearance of symp- tom perception for both surgery interventions. As well, significant improvements were further observed in KESS scores and overall GIQLI. All these data sets are reported in Table  5. Table  6 shows the estimated ∆-change differences (pre- post) between the two intervention techniques for each out- come considered. Notably, only the GIQLI evaluation was significant after the 6-month follow-up (-14.119, P = 0.011). Fig. 4 The anvil is extracted through the colon next to the suture line, pulling on the thread tied to it 2702 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 Concerning the VAS score, dysuria and dyschezia revealed negative differences, in both questionnaire scores.

In our study, we compared two different segmental bowel resection techniques for endometriosis. We did not find any significant differences in terms of intra- or post-operative complications, but only a slight improvement in the Gastro- Intestinal Quality of Life Index in patients who underwent the CT compared to the TICA technique. Other authors had previously demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the NOSE technique for bowel resection in DE using both the transvaginal and transrectal routes, for the extraction of the specimen [ 10, 28, 31]. In agreement with these studies, we also observed no statistically significant differences in terms of post-operative complications between the TICA technique and the classical one. There were no major III-IV complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale. Our data sets are comparable to the results reported by other authors ranging from 2.4 to 13.2% in terms of rectovaginal fistulas, vesicovaginal fistu- las, anastomosis stenosis, ureteral fistulas, and bladder fis- tulas [8, 33]. The low rate of recto-vaginal fistulas and low post-operative complications is also supported by a recent study by Spagnolo et al., with 99 patients who, when com- paring transvaginal specimen extraction (n = 23) and the classic technique (n = 76), showed no statistically signifi - cant differences in term of post-operative complications and recto-vaginal fistula rates between the groups [12]. Akladios et al., examining a group of 39 patients undergoing bowel resection for DE, observed a post-operative complication rate of 12.5% in those to whom the classic technique was applied and 20% in those who had the NOSE technique, with no statistically significant differences [29]. Moreover, these findings are also in agreement with two recent meta-analyses comparing the NOSE technique with the classic bowel resection technique for colorectal cancer; they showed that there were no substantial differ - ences between the two techniques in terms of post-operative complications [ 8, 33]. These studies show that transvagi - nal and transanal NOSE techniques are as safe as the clas- sic suprapubic technique when it comes to post-operative complications. Our study, in particular, indicated that, in the TICA group, leakage of the anastomosis never occurred, in con- trast to the CT group, where it occurred in only one case (5%) (patient who had already undergone surgery for DE). The leakage rate is essentially the one indicated in the lit- erature, which ranges between 0 and 3% [10, 28, 31, 33, 34]. Obviously, given the small number of patients, we cannot Table 1 General characteristics of the study sample at baseline (N = 64) BMI: Body mass index, ASRM: American Society for Reproductive Medicine, VAS: Visual Analog Scale, KESS: Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom Questionnaire, GIQLI: Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index Descriptive statistics are expressed as mean and standard deviations (SD) or medians (interquartile range: IQR) for quantitative variables, and as absolute and relative percentage frequencies for qualitative variables Variables Overall (n = 64) TICA (n = 20) CT (n = 44) P Age (yrs) 38.5 (6.1) 38.0 (5.3) 38.8 (6.5) 0.629 BMI, kg/m2 23.0 (20.4–24.6) 21.1 (20–23.1) 23.5 (21–25) 0.064 Previous surgery for endometriosis 21 (32.8) 7 (35.0) 14 (31.8) 0.802 ASRM endometriosis stage   I 2 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.5) 0.305   II 2 (3.1) 1 (5.0) 1 (2.3)   III 27 (42.2) 12 (60.0) 15 (34.1)   IV 33 (51.6) 7 (35.0) 26 (59.1) VAS Pain Scales   Dysuria 0 (0 – 2) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–3)   Dysmenorrhea 8 (5–9) 8 (7–8) 8 (4–9)   Dyspareunia 6 (3–7) 6 (5–7) 5 (1–7)   Dyschezia 3 (0–7) 4 (1–7) 3 (0–7) Questionnaires  KESS 19.2 (7.6) 18.4 (6.4) 19.3 (8.1) 0.638  GIQLI 57.3 (21.6) 50.8 (18.3) 60.2 (22.6) 0.083 2703Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 determine definitively whether the TICA technique is safer in terms of leakage compared to CT (p = 0.683). It is interesting to observe that one of the most frequent post-operative complications for both techniques was blad- der voiding deficit (10%, 2 patients for TICA vs 6.8%, 3 patients for CT). The complication was resolved with the use of intermittent self-catheterization within 45 days from sur - gery in each of the 5 patients. However, this rate was lower than in other studies on nerve-sparing techniques (0–22%) [35]. Nonetheless, this comparison is not reliable, as only a few studies have specified parametrectomy, which is itself considered a risk factor for post-operative urinary retension- ism [1, 20]. We did not observe any cases of reintervention, as the only anastomotic leak occurred in a patient for whom a temporary ileostomy had previously been performed due to the low distance of anastomosis from the anal margin. As such, the patient was treated conservatively, maintaining the stoma for 70 days, and it then closed without complications; performing a barium enema confirmed the healing of the millimetric colorectal dehiscence. Bowel function, on the other hand, improved sig- nificantly in our series, as confirmed by the consider - able enhancement of both KESS (P < 0.001) and GIQLI (P < 0.001) after colorectal surgery. Conversely, an other study have not shown any relief from digestive complaints Table 2 # Enzian Classification (N = 64) Descriptive statistics are expressed as absolute and relative percentage frequencies # Enzian Overall (n = 64) TICA (n = 20) CT (n = 44) P Peritoneum 18 (28.1) 3 (15.0) 15 (34.1) 0.202 Ovaries  Absent 35 (54.7) 9 (45.0) 26 (59.1) 0.655  O1 12 (18.8) 4 (25.0) 8 (18.2)  O2 14 (21.9) 6 (30.0) 8 (18.2)  O3 3 (4.7) 1 (5.0) 2 (4.5) Tubes  Absent 34 (53.1) 10 (50.0) 24 (54.5) 0.007  T1 7 (10.9) 4 (20.0) 3 (6.8)  T2 12 (18.8) 0 (00.0) 12 (27.3)  T3 11 (17.2) 6 (30.0) 11 (11.4) Compartments A (rectovaginal septum and vagina)  Absent 34 (53.1) 11 (55.0) 23 (52.3) 0.691  A1 4 (6.2) 1 (5.0) 3 (6.8)  A2 16 (25.0) 5 (25.0) 11 (25.0)  A3 10 (15.6) 3 (15.0) 7 (15.9) B (uterosacral/cardinal ligaments, parametrium, pelvic sidewalls)  Absent 24 (37.5) 7 (35.0) 17 (38.6) 0.801  B1 13 (20.3) 5 (25.0) 8 (18.2)  B2 21 (32.8) 7 (35.0) 14 (31.8)  B3 6 (9.4) 1 (5.0) 5 (11.4) C (rectum)  Absent 4 (6.2) 0 (0.0) 4 (9.1) 0.180  C1 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.3)  C2 22 (34.4) 10 (50.0) 12 (27.3)  C3 37 (57.8) 10 (50.0) 27 (61.4) Fa (adenomyosis) 46 (71.9) 14 (70.0) 32 (72.7) 0.822 Fb (urinary bladder involvement) 4 (6.2) 1 (5.0) 3 (6.8) 0.780 Fi (other intestinal locations) 4 (6.2) 0 (0) 4 (9.1) Fu (ureteric involvement with signs of obstruction) 8 (12.5) 2 (10.0) 6 (13.6) 0.683 2704 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 after segmental bowel resection for DE [ 36]. Specifically, our study showed that the change in GIQLI score, between baseline and follow-up, in the TICA group was smaller (p = 0.011) than the same item in CT. This difference is probably due to the fact that the baseline score was slightly better in the CT group than in the TICA group. What in our opinion most differentiates the two surgical techniques is essentially the number of staples necessary for the resection. In fact, in the TICA technique, compared to a potential advantage in reducing laparotomy incisions, the use of an additional stapler is required to resect the cranial portion of the bowel segment with DE and fix the anvil, which instead in the CT is usually inserted manually into the intestinal lumen and blocked with a tobacco pouch. This additional suture on the bowel could theoretically represent an additional risk as in the NOSE, but in our series the only dehiscence was actually reported using the CT. Table 3 Intervention data for the study population (N = 64) TICA totally intracorporeal anastomosis, BSO bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, MSO monoliteral salpingo- oophorectomy, T-T termino-terminal, L-T latero-terminal, L-L latero-lateral *Descriptive statistics are expressed as mean and standard deviations or median and interquartile ranges for quantitative variables, and as absolute and relative percentage frequencies for qualitative variables Surgery Overall (n = 64) TICA (n = 20) CT (n = 44) P Laparoscopy 64 (100) 20 (31.2) 44 (68.8) Nodules Single 47 (73.4) 16 (80.0) 31 (70.5) 0.422 Multiple 17 (26.6) 4 (20.0) 13 (29.5) Intestinal nodule size, cm 3.6 (0.8) 3.7 (1.0) 3.5 (0.7) Resected intestinal tract, cm 8 (6 – 9) 8 (6–9) 8 (6–9) Intestinal tract Rectum 35 (54.7) 13 (65.0) 22 (50.0) 0.762 Sigmoid 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.3) Rectum + Sigmoid 24 (37.7) 7 (35.0) 17 (38.6) Rectum + Ileum 2 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.5) Rectum + Ileocecal 2 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.5) Bowel anastomosis L-L 5 (7.8) 0 (0.0) 5 (11.4) 0.011 L–T 10 (15.6) 0 (0.0) 10 (22.7) T-T 49 (76.6) 20 (100) 29 (65.9) Distance from the anal verge, cm 7 (6–8) 7 (6–7.3) 7 (6–9) Ileostomy 19 (30.0) 5 (25.0) 14 (31.8) 0.580 Colostomy – – – – MSO 9 (14.1) 2 (10.0) 7 (15.9) 0.707 BSO 6 (9.4) 1 (5.0) 5 (11.4) 0.655 Ureterolysis 48 (75.0) 13 (65.0) 35 (79.5) 0.212 Neurolysis 8 (12.5) 3 (15.0) 5 (11.4) 0.683 Duration of intervention (minutes) 348 (77.9) 336.4 (77.7) 353.2 (76.7) 0.426 Days of hospitalization 6 (6–8) 6 (6–7.3) 6 (6–8) 0.597 Estimated blood loss, cc/mL 200 (150–300) 250 (187–300) 200 (150–300) 0.244 Other data Ureteral resection/reimplantation 3 (4.7) 1 (5.0) 2 (4.5) 0.936 Partial resection of the bladder 4 (6.2) 2 (10.0) 2 (10.0) 0.583 Partial vaginal resection 13 (20.3) 5 (25.0) 8 (18.2) 0.523 Conversion to laparotomy – – – – Total hysterectomy 24 (37.5) 6 (30.0) 18 (40.9) 0.403 Posterolateral parametrectomy 51 (79.7) 18 (90.0) 33 (75.0) 0.166 Anterior parametrectomy 3 (4.7) 2 (10.0) 1 (2.3) 0.472 2705Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 We know that our study’s most significant limitation is its retrospective nature and the relatively small sample, but the two groups are comparable from the point of view of clinical characteristics and intra-operative findings, which could reduce the initial bias. Nonetheless, our study is the first to compare the TICA technique with the classic one for segmental bowel resection for DE. Therefore we can argue that the TICA technique is as safe and feasible as the CT in terms of post-operative complications, and this technique can thus be considered an alternative to the NOSE, espe- cially when opening the vagina is not planned. Table 4 Intra- and post- operative complications rates (N = 64) Descriptive statistics are expressed as median and interquartile ranges for quantitative variables, and as absolute and relative percentage frequencies for qualitative variables Complications Overall (n = 64) TICA (n = 20) CT (n = 44) P Intraoperative complications 2 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.5) 0.846 Transfusion 3 (4.7) 1 (5.0) 2 (4.5) 0.936 Fever 11 (17.2) 3 (15.0) 8 (18.2) 0.754 Subcutaneous hematoma 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.3) 0.687 Pelvic abscess 3 (4.7) 1 (5.0) 2 (4.5) 0.936 Uroperitoneum – – – – Hemoperitoneum 1(1.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.3) 0.496 Urinary tract infections 8 (12.5) 3 (15.00) 5 (11.4) 0.683 Bladder voiding deficit 5 (7.8) 2 (10.0) 3 (6.8) 0.660 Intestinal anastomosis leakage 1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.0) 0.683 Anastomosis stenosis – – – Rectovaginal fistula – – – Vesicovaginal fistula – – – Ureteral fistula – – – Ureteral stenosis – – – Vesical fistula – – – Reintervention – – – ClavienDindo maximum grade 0 (0–2) 0 (0–1) 0 (0–1) 0.119 Days of catheterization 4 (0–45) 22 (13–45) 2 (0–5) 0.603 Time from surgery to flatus passage 2 (1–4) 2 (2—3) 2 (2–4) 0.113 Table 5 Pain VAS scale and questionnaire evaluations before intervention and at 6-month follow-up (N = 64) VAS: Visual Analog Scale, KESS: Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom Questionnaire, GIQLI: Gastro- Intestinal Quality of Life Index, FU: Follow-up Descriptive statistics are expressed as mean and standard deviations or median and interquartile ranges P-values were computed using either Student’s t test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for paired data TICA CT Baseline 6-month FU p Baseline 6-month FU p VAS  Dysuria 0 (0–3) 0 (0–0) 0.115 0 (0–0.3) 0 (0–0) 0.067  Dysmenorrhea 8 (7–8) 0 (0–0) < 0.001 8 (3.8–9) 0 (0–0) < 0.001  Dyspareunia 6 (5–7) 0 (0–2) < 0.001 5 (0.7–7) 0 (0–1) < 0.001  Dyschezia 4 (1–7) 0 (0–0) < 0.001 3 (0–7) 0 (0–0) < 0.001 Questionnaires  KESS 18.4 (7.6) 12.1 (7.2) 0.002 19.3 (8.1) 13.0 (7.8) < 0.001  GIQLI 50.8 (22.1) 73.8 (20.5) 0.003 60.2 (22.6) 90.5(18.2) < 0.001 2706 Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 Authors contributions Conceptualization: Manuel Maria Ianieri; Methodology: Manuel Maria Ianieri, Formal analysis and investiga- tion: Antonella Carcagnì; Writing—original draft preparation: Manuel Maria Ianieri, Piefrancesco Greco, Francesco Santullo; Writing— review and editing: Manuel Maria Ianieri, Federica Campolo; Data acquisition -Alessandra De Cicco; Supervision: Giovanni Scambia, Fabio Pacelli. Funding Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and nothing to disclose, and they don’t received any funding for the study. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

1. Ianieri MM, Raimondo D, Rosati A et al (2022) Impact of nerve- sparing posterolateral parametrial excision for deep infiltrating endometriosis on postoperative bowel, urinary, and sexual func- tion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 159(1):152–159 2. Abo C, Moatassim S, Marty N et al (2018) Postoperative com- plications after bowel endometriosis surgery by shaving, disc excision, or segmental resection: a three-arm comparative analysis of 364 consecutive cases. Fertil Steril 109(1):172–178 3. Grigoriadis G, Dennis T, Merlot B et al (2022) Natural orifice specimen extraction colorectal resection for deep endometriosis: a 50 case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(9):1054–1062. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2022. 05. 009 4. Mabrouk M, Raimondo D, Altieri M et al (2019) Surgical, clini- cal, and functional outcomes in patients with rectosigmoid endo- metriosis in the gray zone: 13-year long-term follow-up. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(6):1110–1116 5. Abrão MS, Petraglia F, Falcone T, Keckstein J, Osuga Y, Chapron C (2015) Deep endometriosis infiltrating the recto-sigmoid: criti- cal factors to consider before management. Hum Reprod Update 21(3):329–339 6. Abrão MS, Andres MP, Barbosa RN, Bassi MA, Kho RM (2020) Optimizing perioperative outcomes with selective bowel resection following an algorithm based on preoperative imaging for bowel endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(4):883–891. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2019. 06. 010 7. Grigoriadis G, Dennis T, Merlot B, Forestier D, Noailles M, Fran- çois MO, Hajdinák A, Roman H (2022) Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Colorectal Resection for Deep Endometriosis: A 50 Case Series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(9):1054–1062. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2022. 05. 009 8. Brincat SD, Lauri J, Cini C. Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis. BJS Open. 2022 May 2;6(3):zrac074. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ bjsop en/ zrac0 74 9. Hwang WY, Suh DH, Lee S (2022) Cosmesis and feasibility of transvaginal natural orifice Specimen extraction (NOSE) for large organ specimen: a prospective pilot study. BMC Urol 22(1):165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12894- 022- 01114-4 10. Bokor A, Lukovich P, Csibi N, D’Hooghe T, Lebovic D, Brubel R, Rigo J (2018) Natural orifice specimen extraction during lapa- roscopic bowel resection for colorectal endometriosis: technique and outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(6):1065–1074. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2018. 02. 006 11. Malzoni M, Rasile M, Coppola M, Iuzzolino D, Casarella L, Di Giovanni A, Falcone F (2022) Totally laparoscopic resection with transanal natural orifice specimen extraction for deep endometrio- sis infiltrating the rectum. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(1):19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2021. 07. 015 12. Spagnolo E, Marí-Alexandre J, Di Saverio S, Gilabert-Estellés J, Agababyan C, Garcia-Casarrubios P, López A, González-Cantó Table 6 6-month follow-up Δ-change differences* in the pain VAS scale and questionnaires VAS: Visual Analog Scale; KESS: Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom Questionnaire; GIQLI: Gastro-Intestinal Quality of Life Index; FU: fol- low-up * P-values were computed using regression modelling VAS (Ref.: CT) 6-month FU estimated Δ-change differences P Dysuria − 0.960 0.621 Dysmenorrhea 3.481 0.339 Dyspareunia 0.855 0.483 Dyschezia − 3.199 0.175 Questionnaires (Ref.: CT) 6-months FU estimated Δ-change differences P KESS − 1.317 0.453 GIQLI − 14.119 0.011 2707Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2024) 309:2697–2707 E, Pascual I, Hernández A (2022) Feasibility and safety of trans- vaginal specimen extraction in deep endometriosis colorectal resectional surgery and analysis of risk factors for postoperative complications. Tech Coloproctol 26(4):261–270. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10151- 021- 02565-x 13. Ianieri MM, De Cicco NA, Benvenga G, Greco P, Pafundi PC, Alesi MV, Campolo F, Lodoli C, Abatini C (2023) Attalla El Hal- abieh M, Pacelli F, Scambia F. Francesco Santullo Vascular- and nerve-sparing bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a retrospec- tive single-center study. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ijgo. 15019 14. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Van- denbroucke JP (2014) The strengthening the reporting of observa- tional studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 12(12):1495–1499 15. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of sur- gical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213 16. Knowles CH, Eccersley AJ, Scott SM, Walker SM, Reeves B, Lunniss PJ (2000) Linear discriminant analysis of symptoms in patients with chronic constipation: validation of a new scoring system (KESS). Dis Colon Rectum 43(10):1419–1426 17. Nieveen Van Dijkum EJ, Terwee CB, Oosterveld P, Van Der Meu- len JH, Gouma DJ, De Haes JC. Validation of the gastrointestinal quality of life index for patients with potentially operable periam- pullary carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2000; 87(1): 110–115. 18. Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classifica- tion of endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril. 1997; 67(5): 817–821. 19. Keckstein J, Saridogan E, Ulrich UA et al (2021) The Enzian classification: a comprehensive non-invasive and surgical descrip- tion system for endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 100(7):1165–1175 20. Ceccaroni M, Clarizia R, Bruni F, et al. Nerve-sparing laparo- scopic eradication of deep endometriosis with segmental rectal and parametrial resection: the Negrar method. A single-center, prospective, clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26(7): 2029–2045. 21. Seracchioli R, Mabrouk M, Mastronardi M et al (2019) Anatomic cartography of the hypogastric nerves and surgical insights for autonomic preservation during radical pelvic procedures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(7):1340–1345 22. Zakhari A, Mabrouk M, Raimondo D et al (2020) Keep your landmarks close and the hypogastric nerve closer: an approach to nerve-sparing endometriosis surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(4):813–814 23. Rosati A, Pavone M, Campolo F et al (2022) Surgical and func- tional impact of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for parame- trial deep endometriosis: a single Centre experience. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 14(2):121–127 24. Ianieri MM, Rosati A, Ercoli A, et al. Laparoscopic ureteroneo- cystostomy and round ligament bladder hitching for ureteral ste- nosis in parametrial deep endometriosis: our tips for a tension-free anastomosis [published online ahead of print, 2022 Aug 14]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022; 160: 563–570. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ijgo. 14402 25. Ianieri M, De Cicco NA, Pavone M, Benvenga G, Pafundi MP, Campolo F, Foschi N, Greco P, Brutto M (2023) Scambia G Are ureterolysis for deep endometriosis really all the same? An ana- tomical classification proposal for ureterolysis: A single-center experience Int J Gynaecol Obstet 162(3):1010–1019. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ijgo. 14790 26. Malzoni M, Di Giovanni A, Exacoustos C et al (2016) Feasibil- ity and safety of laparoscopic-assisted bowel segmental resec- tion for deep infiltrating endometriosis: a retrospective cohort study with description of technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(4):512–525 27. Santullo F, Attalla El Halabieh M, Lodoli C, et al. Totally intracor- poreal colorectal anastomosis after segmental sigmoid resection with inferior mesenteric artery preservation for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Tech Coloproctol. 2021; 25(6): 745–746. 28. Cherif Akladios, Emilie Faller, Karolina Afors, Marco Puga, Jaime Albornoz, Christina Redondo, Joel Leroy, Arnaud Wat- tiez Totally laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis with natu- ral orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) techniques, particularly suitable for bowel endometriosis J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21(6):1095–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmig. 2014. 05. 003 29. Rausei S, Sambucci D, Spampatti S, Cassinotti E, Dionigi G, David G, Ghezzi F, Uccella S (2015) Boni L Laparoscopic treat- ment of deep infiltrating endometriosis: results of the combined laparoscopic gynecologic and colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 29(10):2904–2909. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00464- 014- 4018-4 30. Raimondo D, Turco LC, Cosentino F, Mabrouk M, Mastronardi M, Borghese G, Giaquinto I, Vargiu V, Fagotti A, Meriggiola MC, Chiantera V, Scambia G, Seracchioli R (2020) Feasibility and safety of two different surgical routes for the eradication of recto-vaginal endometriosis with vaginal mucosa infiltration Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 99(8):1050–1056. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ aogs. 13824 31. Wolthuis AM, Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, D’Hooghe T, Fieuws S, Penninckx F, D’Hoore A (2011) Hum Reprod 26(6):1348– 1355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ humrep/ der072 32. Chin YH, Decruz GM, Ng CH, Tan HQM, Lim F, Foo FJ, Tai CH, Chong CS (2021) Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta- analysis with meta-regression. Tech Coloproctol 25(1):35–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10151- 020- 02330-6. ( Epub 2020 Aug 26 PMID: 32851500) 33. Diana M, Perretta S, Wall J, Costantino FA, Leroy J, Demartines N, Marescaux J (2011) Transvaginal specimen extraction in colo- rectal surgery: current state of the art. Colorectal Dis 13(6):e104– e111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1463- 1318. 2011. 02599.x 34. Kayaalp C, Yagci MA (2015) Laparoscopic right colon resection with transvaginal extraction: a systematic review of 90 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(5):384–391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ SLE. 00000 00000 000124 35. Darici E, Denkmayr D, Pashkunova D, Dauser B, Birsan T, Hudel- ist G (2022) Long-term surgical outcomes of nerve-sparing dis- coid and segmental resection for deep endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 101(9):972–977 36. Scheepers WFW, Maas JWM, van de Kar MMA (2022) Bowel function and quality of life following surgery for deep endome- triosis. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 43(3):334–339 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.