Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Rectal Endoscopic Sonography for the Prediction of Infiltration Depth in Colorectal Endometriosis

Arane Kim, Kim A, Fernandez P, P. Fernandez, Pedro Fernandez, Brigitte Martin, Martin B, Laurent Palazzo, Palazzo L, Lara Ribeiro‐Parenti, Lara Ribeiro-Parenti, Ribeiro-Parenti L, Walker F, Francine Walker, Bucau M, Margot Bucau, Helene Collinot, Collinot H, Dominique Luton, Luton D, Martin Koskas
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · 2017 · vol. 24(7) , pp. 1218–1226 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.07.026 · PMID:28802956 · W2744735150
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 15 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study compared magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography to determine their accuracy in predicting the infiltration depth of colorectal endometriosis.

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

Abstract

Study objectiveTo compare the accuracies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and rectal endoscopic sonography (RES) in the prediction of the infiltration depth of colorectal endometriosis.DesignA retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).SettingA university teaching hospital.PatientsForty patients with symptomatic deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) of the rectum who underwent colorectal resection were included.InterventionsAll patients underwent abdominopelvic MRI and RES preoperatively to assess the infiltration depth of colorectal endometriosis, and segmental resection of the rectosigmoid by laparoscopy was performed if RES showed bowel invasion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and intermethod agreement were calculated for DIE muscularis and submucosal/mucosal infiltration confirmed by histopathological analysis.Measurements and main resultsFor MRI detection of DIE muscularis infiltration, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and negative LR were 68%, 100%, 100%, 20%, and 0.32, respectively. For the MRI detection of DIE submucosal/mucosal involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and positive and negative LRs were 47%, 81%, 69%, 63%, 2.49, and 0.65, respectively. The PPV of RES detection of DIE muscularis infiltration was 93%. For the RES detection of DIE submucosal/mucosal layers, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and positive and negative LRs were 79%, 48%, 58%, 71%, 1.51, and 0.44, respectively.ConclusionIn the current study, MRI is valuable for detecting endometriosis of the rectum but is less accurate in detecting submucosal/mucosal involvement than RES. Magnetic resonance imaging was not successful for preoperative determination of segmental resection versus a more conservative approach. When bowel involvement is detected by MRI, RES is not essential. When symptoms suggest DIE in patients without intestinal lesions detected by MRI, RES is necessary to exclude bowel invasion.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Colonic Diseases Endometriosis Endosonography Magnetic Resonance Imaging Rectal Diseases Rectum Adult Colonic Diseases Colonic Diseases Endometriosis Endometriosis Endosonography Female Humans Laparoscopy Laparoscopy Middle Aged Peritoneal Diseases Peritoneal Diseases Peritoneal Diseases

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 (32)

Cited by (15)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-03T06:10:56.557307+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:20:19.560968+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK