Evaluation and Management of Endometriosis in the Adolescent.

Endometriosis is a chronic condition, with debilitating symptoms affecting all ages. Dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain often begin in adolescence, affecting school, daily activities, and relationships. Despite the profound burden of endometriosis, many adolescents experience suboptimal management and significant delay in diagnosis. The symptomatology and laparoscopic findings of endometriosis in adolescents are often different than in adults, and the medical and surgical treatments for adolescents may differ from those for adults as well. This Narrative Review summarizes the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of endometriosis in adolescents. Given the unique challenges and complexities associated with diagnosing endometriosis in this age group, it is crucial to maintain a heightened level of suspicion and to remain vigilant for signs and symptoms. By maintaining this lower threshold for consideration, we can ensure timely and accurate diagnosis, enabling early intervention and improved management in our adolescent patients.

Endometriosis Classification Systems: An International Survey to Map Current Knowledge and Uptake.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed, but do clinicians routinely use these classification systems, which system do they use and what are the clinicians' motivations? DATA SOURCES: A cross-sectional study was performed to gather data on the current use of endometriosis classification systems, problems encountered and interest in a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. Of particular focus were three systems most commonly used: the Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) classification, the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), and the ENZIAN classification. Data were analysed by SPSS. A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 11 questions concerning three domains-participants background, existing classification systems and intentions with regards to a new classification system for endometriosis. Replies were collected between 15 May and 1 July 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: The final dataset included the replies of 1178 clinicians, including surgeons, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, fertility specialists and sonographers, all managing women with endometriosis in their clinical practice. Overall, 75.5% of the professionals indicate that they currently use a classification system for endometriosis. The rASRM classification system was the best known and used system, the EFI system and ENZIAN system were known by a majority of the professionals but used by only a minority. The lack of clinical relevance was most often selected as a problem with using any system. The findings of the survey suggest that clinicians worldwide are open to using a new classification system for endometriosis that can achieve standardized reporting, and is clinically relevant and simple. The findings therefore support future initiatives for the development of a new descriptive system for endometriosis and provide information on user expectations and conditions for universal uptake of such a system. CONCLUSION: Even with a high uptake of the existing endometriosis classification systems (rASRM, ENZIAN and EFI), most clinicians managing endometriosis would like a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis.

Endometriosis classification systems: an international survey to map current knowledge and uptake.

STUDY QUESTION: Which classification system for endometriosis do clinicians use most frequently, and why? SUMMARY ANSWER: Even with a high uptake of the three existing endometriosis classification systems, most clinicians managing endometriosis would like a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In the field of endometriosis, several classifications, staging and reporting systems have been developed and published, but there are no data on the uptake of these systems in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 11 questions concerning three domains-participants background, existing classification systems and intentions with regards to a new classification system for endometriosis. Replies were collected between 15 May and 1 July 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed to gather data on the current use of endometriosis classification systems, problems encountered and interest in a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. The particular focus was on the three systems most commonly used: the Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) classification, the endometriosis fertility index (EFI), and the ENZIAN classification. Data were analysed to detect statistically significant differences among user groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The final dataset included the replies of 1178 clinicians, including surgeons, gynaecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, fertility specialists and sonographers, all managing women with endometriosis in their clinical practice. Overall, 75.5% of the professionals indicate that they currently use a classification system for endometriosis. The rASRM classification system was the best known and used system, while the EFI system and ENZIAN system were known by a majority of the professionals but used by only a minority. The lack of clinical relevance was most often selected as a problem with using any system. The vast majority of respondents replied positively to the question on whether they would use a simple surgical descriptive system available for endometriosis, if available. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: While the total number of respondents was acceptable, some regions/professions were not sufficiently represented to draw conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings of the survey suggest that clinicians worldwide are open to using a new classification system for endometriosis that can achieve standardized reporting and is clinically relevant and simple. The findings therefore support future initiatives for the development of a new descriptive system for endometriosis and provide information on user expectations and conditions for universal uptake of such a system. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, ESHRE and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, and consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. He is Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials and Chair of RCOG Academic Board 2018-2021. M.A. reports being member of the executive board and vice president of AAGL. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants from AbbVie, DoD, NIH and Marriot Family Foundation, honoraria from University British Columbia and WERF, support for speaking at conferences (ESHRE, CanSAGE, Endometriosis UK, UEARS, IFFS, IASP, National Endometriosis Network UK) participation on Advisory Boards from AbbVie and Roche, outside the submitted work. She also discloses having a leadership or fiduciary role in SWHR, WERF, WES, ASRM and ESHRE. C.T. reports grants, consulting and speakers' fees non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Nordic Pharma, and support for meeting attendance non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Volition Rx, and Evotec (Lab282-Partnership programme with Oxford University), non-financial support from AbbVie Ltd, all outside the submitted work; and is a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation. J.P. reports personal fees from Hologic, Inc., outside the submitted work; he is also a member of the executive boards of ASRM and SRS. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

Risk Factors Associated with Adnexal Torsion after Hysterectomy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for adnexal torsion after hysterectomy, and to estimate the incidence of the disease in the modern-day era of laparoscopic surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective nested case-control study. SETTING: Large urban medical system. PATIENTS: Eighty-nine female patients ages 17 to 51. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent ovarian-sparing hysterectomy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The estimated incidence of ovarian torsion after hysterectomy was 0.5% (46/8538 ovarian-sparing hysterectomies). The following variables were found to be associated with adnexal torsion after hysterectomy in an adjusted logistic regression: laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted approach to hysterectomy vs any other approach (odds ratio [OR], 3.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-13.23); younger age at the time of hysterectomy (17-40 years) vs older age (41-51 years) (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.33-8.97); and a gynecologic history significant for endometriosis (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.04-15.88). CONCLUSION: There is an association between laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy, younger age at time of hysterectomy, and a history of endometriosis with subsequent risk of adnexal torsion. Providers should have a heightened index of suspicion for adnexal torsion after hysterectomy in patients presenting with acute-onset abdominal pain who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy at a younger age.

Laparoscopic Repair of a Colo-Ovarian Fistula.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a laparoscopic approach to managing a colo-ovarian fistula. DESIGN: Narrated video outlining surgical technique. SETTING: Colo-ovarian fistulas are a rare entity with a lack of systematized evidence to guide surgical treatment [1-3]. Available case reports describe open en-bloc resection of the colon and adnexal organs with colorectal anastomosis [3]. We present a case of a colo-ovarian fistula managed laparoscopically with discoid resection of the fistulous tract, a technique used for rectosigmoid endometriosis [4]. INTERVENTION: A 51-year-old G0 presented with fevers, leukocytosis, and computed tomography imaging showing a peripherally enhancing adnexal complex highly suspicious for tubo-ovarian abscess that was refractory to antibiotics and interventional-radiology guided drainage. The patient elected for definitive surgery with hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and indicated procedures.

An International Terminology for Endometriosis, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: Different classification systems have been developed for endometriosis, using different definitions for the disease, the different subtypes, symptoms and treatments. In addition, an International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care has been published in 2017 by the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) in collaboration with other organisations. An international working group convened over the development of a classification or descriptive system for endometriosis. As a basis for such system, a terminology for endometriosis was considered a condition sine qua non. The aim of the current study was to develop a set of terms and definitions be prepared on endometriosis that would be the basis for standardization in disease description, classification and research. DATA SOURCES: The working group listed a number of terms relevant to be included in the terminology, documented currently used and published definitions, and discussed and adapted them until consensus was reached within the working group. Following stakeholder review, further terms were added, and definitions further clarified. Although definitions were collected through published literature, the final set of terms and definitions is to be considered consensus-based. After finalization of the first draft, the members of the international societies and other stakeholders were consulted for feedback and comments, which lead to further adaptations. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis is presented, including a definition for endometriosis and its subtypes, different locations, interventions, symptoms and outcomes. Endometriosis is defined as a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process. CONCLUSION: The current paper outlines a list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis. The application of the defined terms aims to facilitate harmonization in endometriosis research and clinical practice. Future research may require further refinement of the presented definitions.

Endometriosis Classification, Staging and Reporting Systems: A Review on the Road to a Universally Accepted Endometriosis Classification.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice? DATA SOURCES: A systematic PUBMED literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarized. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific, and different, purposes. There still is no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating the different systems are summarized showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the ENZIAN system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose. CONCLUSION: Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated for the purpose for which they were developed. The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered. It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working towards a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

An international terminology for endometriosis, 2021.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a set of terms and definitions be prepared on endometriosis that would be the basis for standardization in disease description, classification and research? SUMMARY ANSWER: The current paper outlines a list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different classification systems have been developed for endometriosis, using different definitions for the disease, the different subtypes, symptoms and treatments. In addition, an International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care was published in 2017 by the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) in collaboration with other organisations. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: An international working group convened over the development of a classification or descriptive system for endometriosis. As a basis for such a system, a terminology for endometriosis was considered a condition sine qua non. The working group listed a number of terms relevant to be included in the terminology, documented currently used and published definitions, and discussed and adapted them until consensus was reached within the working group. Following stakeholder review, further terms were added, and definitions further clarified. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Although definitions were collected through published literature, the final set of terms and definitions is to be considered consensus-based. After finalization of the first draft, the members of the international societies and other stakeholders were consulted for feedback and comments, which led to further adaptations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis is presented, including a definition for endometriosis and its subtypes, different locations, interventions, symptoms and outcomes. Endometriosis is defined as a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Future research may require further refinement of the presented definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The application of the defined terms aims to facilitate harmonization in endometriosis research and clinical practice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, Consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. C.T. reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other from Gedeon Richter, non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Roche Diagnostics Inc, Volition Rx, outside the submitted work; she is also a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, Research Advisory Board member of Wellbeing of Women, UK (research charity), and Chair, Research Directions Working Group, World Endometriosis Society. J.P reports personal fees from Hologic, Inc., outside the submitted work; he is also a member of the executive boards of ASRM and SRS. The other authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems: a review on the road to a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

STUDY QUESTION: Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated, in 46 studies, for the purpose for which they were developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: A systematic PUBMED literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarized. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific, and different, purposes. There still is no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating the different systems are summarized showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the ENZIAN system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose. LARGE SCALE DATA: NA. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working toward a universally accepted endometriosis classification. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings and activities of the working group were funded by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and World Endometriosis Society. A.W.H. reports grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring, Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Standard Life, Consultancy fees from Roche Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nordic Pharma and Ferring, outside the submitted work. In addition, A.W.H. has a patent Serum biomarker for endometriosis pending. N.P.J. reports personal fees from Abbott, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Vifor Pharma, Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work; he is also President of the World Endometriosis Society and chair of the trust board. S.M. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. C.T. reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck SA, non-financial support and other from Gedeon Richter, non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work and without private revenue. K.T.Z. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare, MDNA Life Sciences, Roche Diagnostics Inc, Volition Rx, outside the submitted work; she is also a Board member (Secretary) of the World Endometriosis Society and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, Research Advisory Board member of Wellbeing of Women, UK (research charity), and Chair, Research Directions Working Group, World Endometriosis Society. The other authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

Tigers in the Sidewall: Surgical Approaches to Excision of Lateral Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the surgical approaches and excisional techniques used in an extreme case of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) affecting the lateral pelvic side wall. DESIGN: A technical video showing the excision of advanced lateral DIE. SETTING: An academic tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTIONS: A 32-year-old woman, gravida 2, para 1, presented for definitive surgical management of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Intraoperative findings revealed severe retroperitoneal fibrosis tethering the external iliac vein, internal iliac artery, obturator nerve, medial umbilical ligament, and ureter. The patient underwent laparoscopic management of the DIE involving the lateral pelvic side wall. We demonstrate the surgical methods and tools required to overcome a unique endometriotic nodule that would not allow for traditional lysis of adhesions from the pelvic side wall. Instead, we used a nontraditional surgical approach by tunneling under the external iliac vascular to tackle the dissection from a lateral to medial direction to free the obturator nerve and internal iliac artery from the ureter and endometriotic nodule. CONCLUSION: Extreme cases of DIE involving the pelvic side wall require surgical finesse when normal planes of dissection are obliterated. Knowledge of retroperitoneal anatomy is critical to overcome unexpected lateral pelvic side wall endometriosis because the disease is rarely confined to the surface. Innovative surgical thinking complemented by an array of surgical tools will ultimately allow the surgeon to master these difficult endometriotic resections.

Use of Uterine Characteristics to Improve Fertility-Sparing Diagnosis of Adenomyosis.

Objective: To describe patient demographics, determine accuracy of clinical diagnosis, and evaluate reliability of laparoscopic uterine characteristics in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Materials and Methods: Enrollment included 117 patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Intraoperatively, the attending surgeon predicted uterine weight; evaluated the presence of fibroids; and commented on the uterus' shape, color, and consistency while probing it with a blunt instrument. A prediction was also made about whether final pathology would reveal adenomyosis. Standardized video recordings were obtained at the start of the case. Each video was viewed retrospectively twice by three expert surgeons in a blinded fashion. Uterine characteristics were reported again with a prediction of whether or not there would be a pathologic diagnosis of adenomyosis. These data were used to calculate inter-and intrarater reliability of diagnosis. Results: Women with adenomyosis were more likely to complain of midline pain as opposed to lateral or diffuse pain (p = 0.048) with no difference in the timing of the pain (p = 0.404), compared to patients without adenomyosis. Uterine tenderness on examination was not an accurate predictor of adenomyosis (p = 0.566). Preoperative diagnosis of adenomyosis by clinicians was poor, with an accuracy rate of 51.7%. None of the intraoperative uterine characteristics were significant for predicting adenomyosis on final pathology, nor was any combination of the features (p = 0.546). Retrospective video reviews failed to reveal any uterine characteristics that generated consistent inter- or intrarater reliability (Krippendorff's α < 0.7) in making the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Conclusions: Clinical and video diagnosis of adenomyosis have low accuracy with no uterine characteristics consistently or reliably predicting adenomyosis on final pathology. (J GYNECOL SURG 34:183).

Discoid Resection of Rectosigmoid Endometriotic Nodules.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To show various techniques to perform laparoscopic anterior discoid resection of rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules. DESIGN: A step-by-step explanation of the techniques using video with narration (educational video). SETTING: Segmental bowel resection and reanastomosis are treatment options for larger rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules. However, laparoscopic anterior discoid resection of rectosigmoid endometriotic nodules is feasible and potentially less morbid in the appropriate candidate. Detailed knowledge of the avascular planes of the pelvis, particularly the pararectal and rectovaginal spaces, is crucial when approaching these nodules, which may initially present within an obliterated posterior cul-de-sac. Resection begins with determination of the nodule size followed by enucleation of the nodule itself. A 2-layer closure with barbed suture is then performed using a rectal probe as a template. Our institution previously demonstrated that barbed suture is safe to use in bowel repair and did not result in major complications [1]. An air leak test assesses the integrity of the repair and may be completed with air insufflation or with a methylene blue or povidone-iodine enema. With larger nodules, a V-shaped closure may be necessary. The patients provided consent to use images and videos of the procedure. Institutional review board approval was not required for this procedure. INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopic anterior discoid resection of a rectosigmoid endometriotic nodule. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic anterior discoid resection avoids the need for segmental bowel resection and reanastomosis. Barbed suture is a safe option for 2-layer bowel closure [1].

Characterization and Preoperative Risk Analysis of Leiomyosarcomas at a High-Volume Tertiary Care Center.

INTRODUCTION: Uterine morcellation in minimally invasive surgery has recently come under scrutiny because of inadvertent dissemination of malignant tissue, including leiomyosarcomas commonly mistaken for fibroids. Identification of preoperative risk factors is crucial to ensure that oncologic care is delivered when suspicion for malignancy is high, while offering minimally invasive hysterectomies to the remaining patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize risk factors for uterine leiomyosarcomas by reviewing preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data with an emphasis on the presence of concurrent fibroids. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of women undergoing hysterectomy with pathologic diagnosis of uterine leiomyosarcoma at a tertiary care center between January 2005 and April 2014. RESULTS: Thirty-one women were identified with leiomyosarcoma and matched to 124 controls. Cases with leiomyosarcoma were more likely to have undergone menopause and to present with larger uteri (19- vs 9-week sized), with the most common presenting complaint being a pelvic mass (35.5% vs 8.9%). Controls were ten times more likely to have undergone a tubal ligation (30.6% vs 3.2%). Endometrial sampling detected malignancy preoperatively in only 50% of cases. Leiomyosarcomas were more commonly present when pelvic masses were identified in addition to fibroids on preoperative imaging. Most leiomyosarcoma cases (77.4%) were performed by oncologists via an abdominal approach (83.9%), with only 2 of 31 leiomyosarcomas being morcellated. Comparative analysis of preoperative imaging and postoperative pathology showed that in patients with leiomyosarcoma, fibroids were misdiagnosed 58.1% of the time, and leiomyosarcomas arose directly from fibroids in only 6.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Leiomyosarcoma risk factors include older age/postmenopausal status, enlarged uteri of greater than 10 weeks, and lack of previous tubal ligation. Preoperative testing failed to definitively identify leiomyosarcomas, although the presence of synchronous pelvic masses in fibroid uteri should raise clinical suspicion. Given the difficulty of preoperative identification, future efforts should focus on the development of safer minimally invasive techniques for uterine morcellation.

Tips and Tricks for Performing Salpingectomy at the Time of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate various techniques to perform salpingectomy efficiently at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy. DESIGN: Step-by-step explanation of the techniques by video with narration (educational video) (Canadian Task Force Classification III). INTERVENTION: Salpingectomy at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic malignancy and has no effective screening strategies for average-risk women. After recognizing that the origin site for pelvic serous carcinomas may be the fallopian tube, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology published a practice statement in November 2013 addressing the role of salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy or other pelvic surgery in average-risk women. (https://www.sgo.org/clinical-practice/guidelines/sgo-clinical-practice-statement-salpingectomy-for-ovarian-cancer-prevention). They now recommend that these women consider opportunistic salpingectomy to reduce their risk of fallopian tube and ovarian cancers. Various techniques allow the surgeon to complete the salpingectomy in a highly efficient manner. CONCLUSION: Salpingectomy at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy or other pelvic surgery should be considered in women at average risk of ovarian cancer. Salpingectomy can be performed either before or after control of the uterine blood supply. The surgical approach must also consider the coexisting pelvic pathology. Efficient dissection occurs if the surgeon maximizes exposure to the fallopian tube, optimizes presentation of the tissue to the working instrument, and provides gentle yet constant traction with accompanying countertraction. The fallopian tube specimen should be removed immediately to prevent its loss in the pelvis.

Anatomic vascular considerations in uterine artery ligation at its origin during laparoscopic hysterectomies.

Pelvic pathology such as fibroids, endometriosis, adhesions from previous pelvic surgeries, or ovarian remnants can distort anatomy and pose technical challenges during laparoscopic hysterectomies. Retroperitoneal dissection to ligate the uterine artery at its vascular origin can circumvent these obstacles, resulting in a safer procedure. However, detailed anatomic knowledge of the course of the uterine artery and understanding of vascular variations are essential for optimal dissection. We frequently encounter a C-shaped uterine artery variation during retroperitoneal dissection. We describe the key steps in identification and isolation of this variant, approaching the uterine artery origin either from the pararectal space or by utilizing the medial umbilical ligament coursing through the paravesical space. We also review other known uterine artery configurations. These techniques allow for safe completion of complex laparoscopic hysterectomies performed for various gynecologic diseases.

Abdominal wall endometriosis: 12 years of experience at a large academic institution.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to review patient characteristics and intraoperative findings for excised cases of abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE). STUDY DESIGN: A 12 year medical record search was performed for cases of excised AWE, and the diagnosis was confirmed on pathological specimen. Descriptive data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 65 patients included, the primary clinical presentation was abdominal pain and/or a mass/lump (73.8% and 63.1%, respectively). Most patients had a history of cesarean section (81.5%) but 6 patients (9.2%) had no prior surgery. Time from the initial surgery to presentation ranged from 1 to 32 years (median, 7.0 years), and time from the most recent relevant surgery ranged from 1 to 32 years (median, 4.0 years). Five patients (7.7%) required mesh for fascial closure following the resection of the AWE. We were unable to demonstrate a correlation between the increasing numbers of open abdominal surgeries and the time to presentation or depth of involvement. Age, body mass index, and parity also were not predictive of depth of involvement. There were increased rates of umbilical lesions (75% vs 5.6%, P < .001) in nulliparous compared with multiparous women as well as in women without a history of cesarean section (66.7% vs 1.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: In women with a mass or pain at a prior incision, the differential diagnosis should include AWE. Although we were unable to demonstrate specific characteristics predictive for AWE, a large portion of our population had a prior cesarean section, suggesting a correlation.

Mechanical bowel preparation for gynecologic laparoscopy: a prospective randomized trial of oral sodium phosphate solution vs single sodium phosphate enema.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of mechanical bowel preparation using oral sodium phosphate (NaP) solution vs single NaP enema on the quality of the surgical field in patients undergoing advanced gynecologic laparoscopic procedures. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Academic teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of either oral NaP solution or single NaP enema for preoperative bowel preparation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six women were enrolled, and 145 were randomized to receive either oral NaP solution (n = 72) or NaP enema (n = 73). Sixty-eight women in the oral solution group and 65 in the enema group completed the study. Assessment of the quality of the surgical field and bowel characteristics was performed using a surgeon questionnaire using Likert and visual analog scales. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in evaluation of the surgical field, bowel handling, degree of bowel preparation, or surgical difficulty. Surgical field quality was graded as excellent or good in 85% of women in the oral solution group and 91% of women in the enema group (p = .43). When surgeons were asked to guess the type of preparation used, they were correct only 52% of the time (κ = 0.04). Assessment of patient quality of life in the preoperative period was performed using a self-administered questionnaire using a visual analog scale. Severity of abdominal bloating and swelling, weakness, thirst, dizziness, nausea, fecal incontinence, and overall discomfort were significantly greater in the oral solution group. Women in the oral solution group also rated the preparation as significantly more difficult to administer, and were significantly less willing to try the same preparation in the future. CONCLUSION: Quality of the surgical field in patients undergoing advanced gynecologic laparoscopic procedures is similar after mechanical bowel preparation using either oral NaP solution and NaP enema. Adverse effects are more severe with oral NaP solution compared with NaP enema administration.

Pelvic denervation procedures: a current reappraisal.

The introduction of minimally invasive techniques over recent years has led to the resurgence of pelvic denervation procedures such as presacral neurectomy and uterine nerve ablation being performed for women with dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain. Women who have failed medical therapy with persistent and debilitating symptoms may certainly benefit from these procedures. However, presacral neurectomy and uterine nerve ablation are distinct procedures that require appropriate patient selection in order to optimize pain relief. Whereas presacral neurectomy may be effective for both primary dysmenorrhea and endometriosis-related pelvic pain, the role of uterine nerve ablation should be reserved for patients with primary dysmenorrhea only, as evidenced by several randomized trials.