Conservative surgery versus colorectal resection for endometrial deposits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical and long-term outcomes

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract PURPOSE: The optimal surgical approach for removal of colorectal endometrial deposits is unclear. Shaving and discoid excision of colorectal deposits allow organ preservation but risk recurrence with associated functional issues and re-operation. Formal resection risks potential higher complications but may be associated with lower recurrence rates. This meta-analysis compares peri-operative and long-term outcomes between conservative surgery (shaving and disc excision) versus formal colorectal resection. METHODS: The study was registered with PROSPERO. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE databases. All comparative studies examining surgical outcomes in patients that underwent conservative surgery versus colorectal resection for rectal endometrial deposits were included. The two main groups (conservative versus resection) were compared in three main blocks of variables including group comparability, operative outcomes and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 2861 patients were analysed with patients subdivided by procedure: colorectal resection (n=1389), shaving (n=703) and discoid excision (n=742). When formal colorectal resection was compared to conservative surgery there was lower risk of recurrence (p=0.002), comparable functional outcomes (minor LARS, p=0.30, major LARS, p=0.54), similar rates of postoperative leaks (p=0.22), pelvic abscesses (p=0.18) and rectovaginal fistula (p=0.92). On subgroup analysis, shaving had the highest recurrence rate (p=0.0007), however a lower rate of stoma formation (p<0.00001) and rectal stenosis (p=0.01). Discoid excision and formal resection were comparable. CONCLUSION: Colorectal resection has a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to shaving. There is no difference in complications or functional outcomes between discoid excision and formal resection and both have similar recurrence rates.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.