ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Comparative outcomes of abdominal wall endometriosis surgery: Specialized endometriosis surgeons versus general surgical teams.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the preoperative diagnostic accuracy of abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) by general surgical teams and specialized endometriosis centers in assessing abdominal wall masses using clinical evaluation and imaging.
methodsA retrospective cohort study included patients with a pathologic diagnosis of AWE who underwent surgical excision between 2007 and 2022. Patients treated by specialized endometriosis surgeons were compared with those treated by general surgery teams. Data collected included patient demographics, lesion size, preoperative symptoms, diagnostic modalities, and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was conducted using univariant and multivariable regression models to identify factors associated with misdiagnosis. Correlation between the size of lesion and the need for the use of mesh was also done.
resultsA total of 46 patients with AWE were included; 27 (58.7%) were treated by the specialized endometriosis center and 19 (41.3%) by general surgeons. Evaluation by a specialized endometriosis center demonstrated a significantly higher correct diagnosis rate compared to the general surgery group (96.3% vs 42.1%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference in complication rates. Regression model revealed that admission by general surgeons increased the likelihood of misdiagnosis by 28 times (28.01 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.74-286.47, P = 0.005). Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging were used more frequently in the general surgery group 42.1% versus 3.7%, P = 0.001. Endometriosis ultrasound was used more frequently in the specialized endometriosis group (100% vs 0%, P < 0.001). Independent of the group the probability of mesh use increased markedly for lesions larger than 3 cm with near certainty for lesions larger than 5 cm.
conclusionEvaluation by specialized endometriosis surgeons was associated with significantly higher diagnostic accuracy of AWE detection compared with evaluation by general surgical teams. Early referral to experienced endometriosis units may reduce misdiagnosis and improve surgical planning.
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.