ArticleCureus2025
A Cross-Sectional Study of Endometriosis Surgeries Across Obstetrics and Gynecology Subspecialties: Does Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (MIGS) Fellowship Training Make a Difference?
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to compare the surgical approaches and postoperative outcomes of endometriosis surgeries performed by different obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) subspecialties: minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), gynecologic oncology (GONC), and other OBGYN subspecialties (OBGYNS). Methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional study on patients who presented to a tertiary healthcare center between 2018 and 2019 and had undergone their first endometriosis surgery at the same center in 2000 or later (n = 258). Variables were compared across subspecialties using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. A multinomial multivariable logistic model (MMLM) was applied to assess adjusted associations between subspecialty, presence of deep endometriosis (DE), and surgical techniques used. Results Univariate analysis revealed significant differences among subspecialties in several areas (p < .001). First, laparoscopy was predominantly used by MIGS (99.3%) and OGYNS (87.9%), while laparotomy was common in GONC cases (66.7%). Pain was the primary indication for MIGS (92.9%), whereas 45% of GONC cases had other indications, like large endometriomas or postmenopausal cysts. OGYNS favored ablation (77.6%), including 85.7% of DE cases. MIGS employed excision in 30.7% of patients and a combination of excision and ablation in 33.6% of cases, with excision not necessarily complete. GONC primarily used ablation (48.3%) and performed isolated endometrioma removal (38.3%). DE was excised in 34.4% (MIGS), 18.8% (GONC), and 0% (OGYNS) of DE cases. Postoperative pain outcomes did not differ significantly (p = .735); persistent pain was reported in MIGS (76.9%), GONC (78.1%), and OGYNS (84.4%). MMLM indicated GONC (p = .011and p = .006) and OGYNS (p = .001 and p = .017) were significantly more likely than MIGS to perform ablation or remove endometriomas alone when adjusting for DE presence. Conclusion Despite variations in surgical techniques among subspecialties, persistent postoperative pain and low DE excision rates underscore the need for standardized endometriosis training and specialized referrals.
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.