Appendectomy in the surgical management of women with endometriosis and pelvic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of appendectomy in surgical excision of endometriosis and to assess complications associated with appendectomy. METHODS: Retrospective study of women undergoing appendectomy for pelvic pain and/or endometriosis during a primary gynecologic procedure. RESULTS: Record review was performed for 609 women who underwent appendectomy between 2013 and 2019 for pelvic pain (6.9%, 42/609), stage I-II endometriosis (63.7%, 388/609), or stage III-IV endometriosis (29.4%, 179/609). Appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) was present in 14.9% (91/609); 2.4% without endometriosis (1/42, reference group), 7.0% with stage I-II endometriosis (27/388, odds ratio [OR] 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-23.11, P = 0.278), and 35.2% with stage III-IV endometriosis (63/179, OR 22.24, 95% CI 2.99-165.40, P = 0.002). AppE was significantly associated with endometriosis present in other locations (OR 5.27, 95% CI 2.66-10.43, P < 0.001). The predicted probability of identifying AppE ranged from 6% with 0 positive endometriosis sites to 56% when 4 or more sites were identified. There were no complications related to the performance of an appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Women with chronic pelvic pain and/or endometriosis have an increased risk of AppE. Modern appendectomy at the time of gynecologic surgery is safe, with no associated complications in this study. Our findings support the consideration of appendectomy as part of the comprehensive surgical management of endometriosis.

Appendiceal Endometriosis: Is Diagnosis Dependent on Pathology Evaluation? A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnosis of appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) in coincidental appendectomy specimens using standard versus modified histopathologic analysis. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of 300 consecutive patients undergoing coincidental appendectomy at the time of a primary gynecologic procedure. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral hospital in the northeastern United States. PATIENTS: Women aged 22 to 52 years undergoing gynecologic surgery for the management of endometriosis or chronic pelvic pain between 2013 and 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Each appendix specimen underwent standard pathologic analysis with 4 sections performed. Modified pathologic analysis, consisting of standard analysis plus serial sectioning and complete evaluation of the appendix and mesoappendix, was then performed. The first pathologist reviewed all the slides to render a diagnosis. The slides of the subjects with abnormal pathology were rereviewed. On rereview, the diagnosis was confirmed, and the data on which protocol, standard or modified, achieved the diagnosis was rendered. The pathologist performing the second review was blinded to whether the slides from the standard or modified histopathology protocol achieved the original diagnosis. This allowed each specimen to serve as its own control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome is the detection of AppE. The standard analysis identified endometriosis in 7.7% (n = 23) of appendiceal specimens, whereas the modified analysis identified endometriosis in 10.0% (n = 30; odds ratio 1.3; confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; p = .01). When all pathology findings were combined, the standard analysis identified abnormal pathology in 9.3% (n = 28) of the specimens, whereas the modified analysis identified abnormal pathology in 12.3% (n = 37; odds ratio 1.4; confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; p <.01). Other abnormal appendiceal pathology identified in this study included polyps, neuroendocrine tumors, and acute appendicitis. The average number of slides required for the standard analysis was 1.4 compared with 4.9 slides for the modified analysis. At this institution, the average increase in the cost of slide production for the modified protocol was $12.07. CONCLUSION: Modified pathologic analysis resulted in a significantly higher rate of diagnosis of endometriosis and abnormal pathology in coincidental appendectomy performed during a primary gynecologic procedure for endometriosis and/or chronic pelvic pain. The use of a standard pathologic protocol likely contributes to underdiagnosis of AppE. The implementation of a modified histopathologic protocol should be considered for improving diagnosis rates of appendiceal pathology in coincidental appendectomy specimens.

Surgical Excision Versus Ablation for Superficial Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical excision and ablation of endometriosis for treatment of chronic pelvic pain. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 12-month follow-up (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Single academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Women with minimal to mild endometriosis undergoing laparoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Excision or ablation of superficial endometriosis at the time of robot-assisted laparoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) scoring at baseline and 6 and 12 months for menstrual pain, nonmenstrual pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia. Secondary outcomes included survey results at baseline and 6 and 12 months from the Short Form Health Survey, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, and the International Pelvic Pain Assessment. From December 2013 to October 2014, 73 patients were randomized intraoperatively to excision (n = 37) or ablation (n = 36) of endometriosis. Patients were followed at 6 and 12 months to evaluate the above outcomes. After ablation of endometriosis, dyspareunia (VAS scores) improved at 6 months (mean change [MC], -14.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -25.93 to -2.21; p = .02), but improvement was not maintained at 12 months. Dysmenorrhea improved at 6 months (MC, -26.99; 95% CI, -41.48 to -12.50; p < .001) and 12 months (MC, -24.15; 95% CI, 39.62 to -8.68; p = .003) with ablation. No significant changes were seen in VAS scores after excision at 6 or 12 months. When comparing ablation and excision, the only significant difference was a change in dyspareunia at 6 months (MC, -22.96; 95% CI, -39.06 to -6.86; p = .01). CONCLUSION: Treatment with ablation improved dysmenorrhea at 6 and 12 months and improved dyspareunia at 6 months as compared with preoperative data. However, only dyspareunia demonstrated a significant difference between ablation and excision. Excision and ablation showed similar effectiveness for the treatment of pain associated with superficial endometriosis, with ablation showing more significant individual changes. Careful patient counseling regarding expectations of surgical intervention is vital in the management of endometriosis.

Ovarian Artery Embolization as a Treatment for Persistent Ovarian Remnant Syndrome.

Ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS) is a rare condition in which ovarian tissue persists at the site of prior oophorectomy and often causes debilitating pelvic pain. Gold standard of treatment is surgical resection. We report a case of persistent ORS in a 44-year-old female who was successfully treated with ovarian artery embolization after failure of standard medical and gynecologic therapies. The ovarian tissue remnant was reduced by 75% in volume, and the patient was near symptom-free four months after the procedure.