Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39588841›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024

Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometrioma.

Rashi Kalra, Rose McDonnell, Fiona Stewart, Roger J Hart, Martha Hickey, Cindy Farquhar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Surgical management of endometriosis: surgical techniques, adjuvant therapy, and long-term management Number 10 - 2026.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rashi KalraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Rose McDonnellKing Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Fiona Stewartc/o Cochrane Incontinence, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Roger J HartSchool of Women's and Infants' Health, The University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital and Fertility Specialists of Western Australia, Subiaco, Perth, Australia.
Martha HickeyThe University of Melbourne, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Cindy FarquharDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometrioma are endometriotic deposits within the ovary. Laparoscopic management of endometriomas is associated with shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, and decreased hospital costs compared with laparotomy. The previous version of this systematic review (2008), including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions for endometrioma, concluded that laparoscopic cystectomy (excision) was preferable to drainage and ablation of endometrioma. We aimed to update the evidence comparing excision with drainage and ablation for improving pain and fertility-related outcomes.

objectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic excision (cystectomy) compared with laparoscopic drainage and ablation of endometrioma in women of reproductive age. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, two trials registries, grey literature sources, and conference proceedings on 19 December 2022. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted leaders in the field of endoscopic surgery for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were RCTs that compared excision with drainage and ablation of endometriomas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN

resultsWe identified nine studies (involving 578 women) that investigated laparoscopic excision versus drainage and ablation of endometriomas measuring at least 3 cm in diameter. Participants were women of reproductive age who presented to an outpatient gynaecology clinic with pain, infertility, or both. For most outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias due to lack of blinding and for imprecision due to low participant numbers. At up to two years after surgery, excisional surgery compared with ablative surgery may reduce the risk of dysmenorrhoea recurrence (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52; 2 studies, 140 women; low-certainty evidence;). Recurrence of dysmenorrhoea may occur in 49% of women after ablative surgery compared with 10% to 34% after excisional surgery. At up to two years after surgery, excisional surgery compared with ablative surgery may reduce the risk of dyspareunia recurrence (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 2 studies, 131 women; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence of dyspareunia may occur in 58% of women after ablative surgery compared with 4% to 23% after excisional surgery. At one year after surgery, excisional surgery may reduce the risk of endometrioma recurrence compared with ablative surgery (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.34; 4 studies, 264 women; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence of endometrioma may occur in 37% of women after ablative surgery compared with 5% to 17% after excisional surgery. At one year after surgery, excisional surgery may reduce the need for further endometrioma surgery compared with ablative surgery (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 2 studies, 178 women; low-certainty evidence). Our results suggest that 32% of women require further endometrioma surgery after ablative surgery compared with 3% to 16% after excisional surgery. There may be little or no difference between excisional surgery and ablative surgery in terms of their effect on spontaneous pregnancy during the first year after surgery (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.87; 3 studies, 101 women; low-certainty evidence). Five studies reported that there were no conversions to laparotomy. No studies provided data about any other surgical complications or adverse effects. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSurgical management of endometrioma with excision (cystectomy) may be more effective than drainage and ablation for reducing painful menstrual periods, pain during sexual intercourse, endometrioma recurrence, and the need for further endometrioma surgery. However, there may be little or no difference between the techniques in their effect on subsequent pregnancy rates. We found limited evidence on the safety of excisional surgery compared with ablative surgery. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure outcomes relating to adverse events and clinical pregnancy.

Indexed as

DrainageEndometriosisLaparoscopyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultBiasDysmenorrheaDyspareuniaFemaleHumansOvarian DiseasesRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID39588841
PMCPMC11590177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.