The nano-revolution in the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a painful gynecological disease with a high prevalence, affecting millions of women worldwide. Innovative, non-invasive treatments, and new patient follow-up strategies are needed to deal with the harmful social and economic effects. In this scenario, considering the recent, very promising results already reported in the literature, a commitment to new research in the field of nanomedicine is urgently needed. Study findings clearly show the potential of this approach in both the diagnostic and therapeutic phases of endometriosis. Here, we offer a brief review of the recent exciting and effective applications of nanomedicine in both the diagnosis and therapy of endometriosis. Special emphasis will be placed on the emerging theranostic application of nanoproducts, and the combination of phototherapy and nanotechnology as new therapeutic modalities for endometriosis. The review will also provide interested readers with a guide to the selection process and parameters to consider when designing research into this type of approach.

Magnetic Resonance Rectal Enema Versus Computed Tomographic Colonography in the Diagnosis of Rectosigmoid Endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES: Rectosigmoid involvement by endometriosis causes intestinal symptoms such as constipation, diarrhea, and dyschezia. A precise diagnosis about the presence, location, and extent of bowel implants is required to plan the most appropriate treatment. The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance with distension of the rectosigmoid (MR-e) with computed colonography (CTC) for diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis. METHODS: This study was based on the retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with suspicion of rectosigmoid endometriosis who underwent both MR-e and CTC, and subsequently were treated by laparoscopy. The findings of imaging techniques were compared with surgical and histological results. RESULTS: Of 90 women included in the study, 44 (48.9%) had rectosigmoid nodules and underwent bowel surgery. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis were 88.6%, 93.5%, 92.9%, 89.6%, and 91.1% for CTC, and 93.2%, 97.9%, 97.6%, 93.8%, and 95.6% for MR-e. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of both radiologic examinations for diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis (P = 0.344). However, MR-e was more accurate than CTC in estimating the largest diameter of the main rectosigmoid nodule (P < 0.001). The pain perceived by the patients was significantly lower during MR-e than during CTC (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MR-e and CTC have similar diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of rectosigmoid involvement of endometriosis. However, MR-e is more accurate in the estimation of the largest diameter of main rectosigmoid nodule and more tolerated than CTC.

Does Bowel Preparation Improve the Performance of Rectal Water Contrast Transvaginal Ultrasonography in Diagnosing Rectosigmoid Endometriosis?

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to compare the performance of the rectal water transvaginal ultrasonography (RWC-TVS) with and without bowel preparation (BP) in diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis. The secondary objectives were to compare the performance of the 2 exams in estimating infiltration of the mucosa, length of the largest rectosigmoid nodules, distance of the nodules from the anal verge, and presence of multifocal disease. METHODS: This prospective study included patients with pain symptoms and intestinal complaints suggestive of endometriosis. Patients underwent RWC-TVS with and without BP within an interval of 1 week to 2 months. Two independent and blinded gynecologists performed the exams. The results of the 2 exams were compared with surgical and histologic findings. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included in the study; 92 patients had rectosigmoid endometriosis. There was no significant difference in the performance of RWC-TVS with or without BP in diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis (P = .727). There was no significant difference in the performance of RWC-TVS with or without BP in diagnosing infiltration of the mucosa (P = .424) and multifocal disease (P = .688), in estimating the main diameter of the largest nodule (P = .644) and the distance between the more distal rectosigmoid nodule and the anal verge (P = .090). The patients similarly tolerated the 2 exams (P = .799). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation does not improve the performance of RWC-TVS in diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis and in assessing the characteristics of these nodules.