Observational studyPloS one2025
Follow-up of bowel endometriosis resections performed using the double circular stapler technique: A decade's experience.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Dyspareunia One Year After Nerve-Sparing Endometriosis Surgery: An Observational Study Highlighting Undesirable Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Safety and Reproductive Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Nerve-Sparing Surgery for Deep Endometriosis in Infertile Women: A One-Year Follow-Up Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo report individual early and long-term functional outcomes of 43 women who underwent double circular stapler technique (DCST) for colorectal deep endometriosis (DE).
methodsThis multidisciplinary observational study was a retrospective case series report exploiting a long-established database of clinical information from a single private institution. The cohort consists of consecutive patients from January/2010 through July/2021 who underwent minimally invasive surgical treatment of DE. Inclusion criteria: all women whose bowel DE was managed by DCST. The assessment of bowel function was based on Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale and Bowel Function in the Community Tool. Outcomes also included intra and postoperative complications, lower urinary tract symptoms, endometriosis-related menstrual and nonmenstrual pain (numeric rating scale), and conception. The analysis of the results was guided by a semi-qualitative reasoning based on individual changes.
resultsThe follow-up ranged from 1.4 to 123.8 months (median 38.2). All women presented with DE (mostly rASRM stage 4) and underwent large resections. No procedure was converted to open surgery nor required blood transfusion or ostomies. There was no anastomotic leakage. The risk of rectovaginal bowel fistula was 2.3% (CI 95%: <0.1-7.0) - one case. No patient had long-term urinary retention after surgery. At the most recent follow-up on dysuria, dyschezia, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and cyclic low back pain, 88 to 100% of women had favorable responses (improvements ≥ 3 points in symptomatic women or asymptomatic women who remained pain-free). One patient reported important worsening of her intestinal function, requiring continuous use of laxatives. Considering the 20 women with pregnancy intent, 14 (70%) conceived after surgery. DISCUSSION /
conclusionPreliminary results were encouraging in the past. The current assessment including long-term follow-up supports DCST for colorectal DE as a feasible, useful, and safe strategy for avoiding segmental colorectal resection when appropriately indicated and properly performed.
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.