Conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis: A systematic analysis of complications.

Background: Endometriosis of the bowel can be associated with significant morbidity. Surgery to remove it carries risks. Options include conservative shaving or discoid resection and more radical segmental bowel resection. Aims: To determine if more conservative shaving or discoid bowel resection is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Vol. 61; no. 2; pp. 169 - 177
Autores principales: Heinz‐Partington, Sean, Costa, Walter, Martins, Wellington P., Condous, George
Formato: research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Apr2021
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=149847619&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 149847619
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00048666
        Q4M
      jtl: Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
      issn: 00048666
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2021
      vid: 61
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        149847619
        148587249
        149847619
        149847619
        10.1111/ajo.13311
        149847619
      ppf: 169
      ppct: 8
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis: A systematic analysis of complications.
      aug:
        au:
          Heinz‐Partington, Sean
          Costa, Walter
          Martins, Wellington P.
          Condous, George
        affil: Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Sydney Medical School Nepean, Nepean Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney New South Wales,, Australia
      sug:
        subj:
          Endometriosis Surgery
          Intestines Surgery
          Surgery, Operative Methods
          Postoperative Complications
          Human
          Systematic Review
          Cochrane Library
          CINAHL Database
          Embase
          PubMed
          Checklists
      ab: Background: Endometriosis of the bowel can be associated with significant morbidity. Surgery to remove it carries risks. Options include conservative shaving or discoid resection and more radical segmental bowel resection. Aims: To determine if more conservative shaving or discoid bowel resection is associated with fewer risks than more radical segmental resection. Material and Methods: This study is a systematic review. We considered eligible any cohort, observational or randomised controlled trial (RCT) study of at least ten women per arm comparing conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis. We divided complications into two groups, major and minor. One additional article was added due to its significance in answering our study question as well as the high quality of the study design as an RCT. Results: There were 3041 studies screened. Eleven studies were included (n = 1648). For major complications, the risk ratio for shaving and disc excision vs segmental resection is 0.31 (95% CI 0.21–0.46), while the risk difference is −0.25 (95% CI −0.41 to 0.10). For minor complications, the risk ratio is 0.63 (95% CI 0.36–1.09), while the risk difference is −0.03 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.05). Conclusions: Conservative shaving or discoid excision surgery is associated with reduced complications. Previous studies demonstrated a trend toward this finding, but suffered from relatively low participant numbers, increasing the risk of type one statistical error. Our results allow surgeons to make informed choices about potential complications when deciding how to approach bowel endometriosis. The results also allow patients to have more information about the risks. However, outcomes in the studies analysed are heterogenous and are from low‐quality evidence.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        systematic review
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N