ReviewInternational journal of women's health2025
Urogynecological Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Surgery for Deep Endometriosis: A Systematic Review.
Review in International journal of women's health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep endometriosis (DE) frequently affects pelvic organs and may impair urinary function through both direct involvement and surgical nerve disruption. Minimally invasive excision is the standard treatment for symptomatic DE, but its impact on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines to evaluate postoperative urogynecological outcomes following laparoscopic or robotic surgery for DE (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251113885). PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published over the last 25 years. Eligible studies included women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for DE with postoperative urinary outcomes assessed by validated questionnaires or urodynamic testing. Methodological quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Out of 175 records, 9 studies involving 20-289 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported significant postoperative improvements, particularly in urgency, frequency, and dysuria, with benefits most evident in women presenting with moderate-to-severe preoperative LUTS. Improvements were observed in both subjective assessments, by using standardized questionnaires such as the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ), Urinary Symptom Profile (USP), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and, in some cases, objective measures such as bladder capacity and uroflowmetry. Conversely, three studies documented no significant change or worsening of urinary function, predominantly in women with minimal baseline dysfunction or extensive parametrial and sacral nerve involvement. In these series, postoperative deterioration included increased voiding difficulties and worsening symptom scores. Across studies, outcome definitions, assessment tools, surgical techniques, and follow-up intervals varied substantially, introducing significant heterogeneity that prevented a formal meta-analysis from being performed. Overall, minimally invasive surgery for DE may yield meaningful symptomatic relief in selected patients, particularly when nerve-sparing techniques are applied. However, functional deterioration remains a relevant risk, especially among those with minimal baseline LUTS. Future research should prioritize prospective trials with standardized outcome measures, longer follow-up, and stratification by preoperative symptom burden to optimize patient selection and refine surgical approaches.
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.