ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
"The Sword in the Stone": radical excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel shaving-a single-centre experience on 703 consecutive patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Managing the aftermath: complications and outcome after colorectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis-insights from a certified surgical endoscopy center.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Approaches to Endometriosis Management and Targeted Strategies for Bowel Endometriosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Pain Relief, Gastrointestinal Function, and Recurrence After Conservative versus Radical (Segmental Resection) Surgery for Bowel Endometriosis: A Prospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- A Gender Perspective on Coloproctological Diseases: A Narrative Review on Female Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic segmental bowel resection, disc excision and rectal shaving are described as surgical options for the treatment of bowel endometriosis, but the gold standard has not yet established. The aim of the study is to investigate the efficacy of the laparoscopic bowel shaving technique in terms of pain symptomatology and to analyse early and late postoperative complications.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of a series of 703 consecutive patients treated between January 2014 and December 2019 in a tertiary care referral centre. All patients underwent laparoscopic bowel shaving with concomitant radical excision of DIE.
resultsBilateral posterolateral parametrectomy and ureterolysis were performed, respectively, in 314 (44.7%) and 318 cases (45.2%). A radical hysterectomy was performed in 107 cases (82.9%). Postoperative complications were infrequent: 17 patients required a reoperation (2.4%) and in this subgroup we registered 2 rectovaginal fistulas (0.3%), 4 patients received blood transfusion (0.6%), 12 patients (1.7%) experienced postoperative fever, 6 patients experienced impaired bladder voiding (0.9%) after 6 months. Median follow-up was 14 months. The study reported good clinical and surgical results, with a regression of symptoms (p < 0.0001) and an overall rate of recurrence of 6.5%. Clinical and instrumental criteria of bowel endometriosis relapse were exclusively detected in 5 patients (0.8%). Eleven patients (1.7%) with relapsed endometriosis were reoperated.
conclusionsBowel shaving is a feasible and valuable surgical procedure. It is only the last step of a complex surgery which is aimed to minimize the residual quote of infiltrating nodule and requires a multidisciplinary team to achieve optimal treatment preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.