https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh-151847

Recurrence and Pregnancy Rate After Surgery Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

authors:

avatar Fatemeh Abdi ORCID 1 , 2 , avatar Zainab Alimoradi 3 , avatar Nastaran Safavi Ardabili 4 , avatar Elham Shirdel 5 , avatar Farinaz Rahimi 6 , avatar Narges Mirzadeh 7 , avatar Fatemeh Alsadat Rahnemaei ORCID 8 , *

Non-communicable Diseases Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran
Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Health Management Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran
Department of Midwifery, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
Department of Midwifery, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran
Department of Reproductive Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Bam University of Medical Sciences, Bam, Iran
Reproductive Health Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
Middle East Journal of Rehabilitation and Health Studies: Vol.12, issue 1; e151847
published online: November 27, 2024
article type: Systematic Review
received: August 1, 2024
revised: November 4, 2024
accepted: November 4, 2024

How To Cite Abdi F, Alimoradi Z, Safavi Ardabili N, Shirdel E, Rahimi F, et al. Recurrence and Pregnancy Rate After Surgery Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Middle East J Rehabil Health Stud. 2025;12(1):e151847. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh-151847.

Abstract

Context:

Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is a specific form of endometriosis in women, causing infertility and pelvic pain during reproductive age. Surgery is the treatment of choice for managing DIE, as medical therapy alone cannot adequately control symptoms.

Objectives:

The present study aims to investigate the recurrence and pregnancy rates following surgical treatment of DIE in women of reproductive age.

Methods:

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases were searched from 2010 to August 25th, 2024, using appropriate MeSH keywords. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018.

Results:

A total of 41 studies were included in the systematic review, and 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis comprised 6,585 individuals from 14 countries. The pooled estimated prevalence of endometriosis recurrence was 13% (95% CI: 11–17%, I²: 96.5%, Tau²: 0.01, Observations: 35). The corrected pooled estimated pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis was 47% (95% CI: 36–57%, I²: 96.47%, Tau²: 0.05).

Conclusions:

Recurrence and pregnancy rates remain controversial challenges in the surgical management of DIE. This study indicates a relatively low recurrence rate after DIE surgery and an improvement in the approximate pregnancy rate following the surgical approach.

1. Context

Endometriosis is a chronic condition in women characterized by the abnormal growth of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity or myometrium (1). This condition is associated with infertility, chronic pelvic pain, and asymptomatic presentations in 31%, 42%, and 23% of cases, respectively, among women of reproductive age (2). Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is a severe form of endometriosis, defined by the infiltration of endometrial-like tissue into the deeper layers of the pelvic organs and tissues (3). Deep infiltrating endometriosis typically involves specific areas such as the rectovaginal septum, uterosacral ligaments, pararectal space, and vesicoureteral fold. However, it may also affect the rectum, sigmoid colon, ileum, ureter, diaphragm, and other less common locations (4). Among symptoms, dysmenorrhea is the most frequent type of pain experienced by women with endometriosis (5, 6). Deep infiltrating endometriosis is also strongly associated with pelvic pain and dyspareunia (7).

Medical managementof endometriosis includes treatments such as danazol, progesterone medications, gestrinone, combined estrogen and progesterone formulations, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and other comparable options (8). However, surgical intervention remains the most effective approach for managing DIE (9) due to the limitations of medical therapy in controlling symptoms. Studies have shown that while surgery can significantly alleviate pain, there remains a risk of disease recurrence across all stages of the condition. Various laparoscopic approaches have been utilized for the treatment of bowel endometriosis, including shaving, disc excision, and segmental resection (10). However, no definitive evidence has established the superiority of one surgical technique over another, as limited medium-term studies compare safety, effectiveness, and recurrence rates among these techniques (11).

Recurrence is defined as the reappearance of symptoms and signs following treatment and remission and varies depending on the duration of follow-up (12). Evidence suggests that surgery alone can effectively control pain caused by endometriosis across all stages of the disease. On the other hand, the effectiveness of treatment in women with endometriosis is often measured by reductions in pain and improvements in infertility following treatment (13).

Given the increasing prevalence of endometriosis in recent decades, addressing the knowledge gap in current review studies and updating existing information is essential.

2. Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to investigate the recurrence and pregnancy rates following surgical treatment of DIE in reproductive-age women. Additionally, the study evaluates the preoperative and postoperative prevalence of common accompanying symptoms in these cases.

3. Data Sources

3.1. Study Design and Registration

This investigation was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) framework. The PRISMA guidelines include a total of 27 components, covering various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, such as abstracts, methods, results, discussions, and the disclosure of financial resources (14).

This study was approved by the ethical code IR.ABZUMS.REC.1401.025 at Alborz University of Medical Sciences. Furthermore, it was registered on the PROSPERO website under the ID "CRD42022328051."

3.2. Search Strategy

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest were systematically searched from 2010 to August 25, 2024. Initially, each keyword was searched individually, followed by their combination using "AND" or "OR" to create new keywords or phrases. The search strategy, employing MeSH keywords, is outlined below:

'Deep endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'Deep infiltrating endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'DIE'[tiab], OR 'Bowel endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'Colorectal endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'Rectovaginal endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'Bladder endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'Ureteral endometriosis'[tiab] OR, 'Diaphragmatic endometriosis'[tiab], OR 'Endometrioma'[tiab], OR 'Endometriomas'[tiab], AND 'Surgery'[tiab], OR 'Surgery treatment'[tiab], AND 'Recurrence'[tiab], OR 'Recrudescence'[tiab], OR 'Recrudescences' [tiab], OR, 'Relapse'[tiab], 'Relapses'[tiab], AND 'Fertility rate' [tiab], OR 'pregnancy rate'[tiab].

3.3. Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria were established based on the PICO-S framework, where P represents the population (reproductive-age women), I represents the intervention (surgical procedures), C represents the comparison (without comparison), O represents the outcome (recurrence and pregnancy rates), and S represents the study design [cohort, cross-sectional, and randomized clinical trials (RCTs)]. Studies published up to August 25th, 2024, with full-text availability in English or Persian, were included. Exclusion criteria comprised letters, comments, short communications, conference abstracts, grey literature, review studies, and other irrelevant studies.

3.4. Study Selection

To achieve the final results presented in Table 1, a systematic process was initiated. The titles and abstracts of all retrieved studies were screened based on the inclusion criteria. In the next step, the full texts of the eligible abstracts were evaluated, and if the full text was inaccessible, an email was sent to the corresponding author. Subsequently, the full texts of eligible studies were thoroughly examined according to the specified criteria, and relevant studies were selected for analysis. This process was conducted independently by two reviewers, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. In cases where the study content was unclear, the authors were contacted directly for clarification.

Table 1.

Key Findings of the 41 Studies Included in the Systematic Review

IDAuthorYearCountryDesignNumber of ParticipantsAge (y)BMI (kg/m2)SymptomsLocation of EndometriosisSurgical TechniquesFollow-up (Months)
1Missori, et al. (15)2024SpainCohort10336.55 (23 - 50)24.66(15.90 - 33.59)Dyspareunia; dysmenorrhea; chronic pelvic pain; dyschezia; stranguria; abdominal distension; tenesmus; constipation; diarrhea; hematocheziaIntestineBowel resection (sigmoid-rectum resection, rectal shaving, discoid resection, ileal resection, strictureplasty)27.52 (1 - 54)
2Han and Zheng (16)2024ChinaCohort21228.90 ± 6.01023.03 ± 3.625Severe dysmenorrheaOvariesLaparoscopic surgery24
3Zhang, et al. (17)2023ChinaCohort6331.25 ± 5.8122.62 ± 2.79Pain; urinary symptoms; gastrointestinal symptoms; infertility; adenomyosisPelvisTransumbilical single-port laparoscopy22.90 ± 5.46
4Yang, et al. (18)2023ChinaCross-sectional34735.18 ± 6.187Not mentionedDysmenorrhea; AdenomyosisOvariesNot mentioned1 - 60
5Leborne, et al. (19)2022FranceCohort16534.00 (IQR: 11.00)23.00 (IQR: 6.00)Dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia; pain when defecatingUterus, ovaries, fallopian tube, pelvis peritoneum, vagina, recto vaginal wall, bowel and cutaneous scarSurgical excision1.5
6Zhang et al. (20)2022ChinaCohort3430.22 ± 3.62Not mentionedPrimary or secondary infertilityOvariesMinimally invasive surgical techniques26.57  ±  14.51
7Kim et al. (21)2022South koreaCohort5636.4 ± 5.721.9 ± 4.6Palpable abdominal mass with increasing in size during previous year55.6% C/S scar; -5.6% episiotomy site; -16.7% inguinal area; -22.2% laparoscopic trocar site (including umbilicus)Local excision ; in metastatic cases laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection31.8 ± 26.9
8Roman et al. (22)2022FranceCohort5527 - 36Not mentionedDysmenorrhea; deep dyspareunia; pelvic pain outside periodsRectumSegmental resection; nodule excision via shaving or disk excision84
9Ceccaroni, et al. (23)2022ItalyCohort703Median: 36 years (range: 21 - 56)22.7 ± 4.9Chronic pelvic pain; dysmenorrhea; dysuria; dyspareunia; dyscheziaBowelLaparoscopic bowel shaving with concomitant radical excision of DIEMedian: 14 months (range: 6 - 49)
10Sarbazi, et al. (24)2021IranCohort17434.86 ± 6.4724.95 ± 4.40MenorrhagiaMetrorrhagia; dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia; irregular menstruation; infertilityOvarian fossa and vaginal vaultLaparo¬scopic surgery48
11Yela, et al. (25)2021BrazilCohort7239.7 ± 6.326.9 ± 5.0Dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia; chronic pelvic pain; dyschezia; dysuria; infertilityIntestinal tract, urinary tract, ovaries, uterine/bladder pouch, douglas pouchSurgical treatment to remove endometriosis lesions4.56 ± 2.60 years
12Vidal, et al. (26)2021FranceCohort50 (early group = 25 & late group =25)Early group: 31.7 ± 3.9 & late group : 34.0 ± 3.5Early group: 24.0 ± 4.3 & late group : 22.6 ± 3.5Infertility; pelvic pain; dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia; pain on defecation; urinary symptomsBowelLaparoscopic removal of deep endometriosis lesions34.1
13Parra, et al. (27)2021BrazilCross-sectional7736.4 ± 5.525.7 kg/m2 (min-max:17.9 - 37.5)Infertility; dyspareunia; dysmenorrhea adenomyosisBowelLaparoscopic discoid resection, segmental resection, or shaving of DIE2.3 years (6 mo-6.5 years)
14Jayot, et al. (28)2021FranceCross-sectional9334 (range:19 - 59)23 (range:17 - 37)Dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia chronic pelvic pain; dyschezia painful defecation infertilityColorectalDiscoid colorectal resection20
15Abesadze, et al. (29)2020GermanyCohort15RVE: 34 ± 5.4; RCE: 31 ± 4.8Not mentionedCyclic pelvic pain; chronic pelvic pain; dyspareunia; dyschezia; dysuria; infertilityRVE & RCESingle laparoscopy was performed in RCE patients & vaginal assisted laparoscopy in RVE patients36
16Ceccaroni, et al. (30)2020ItalyCohort26436.8 ± 5.621.03 ± 3.26Urinary frequency; tenesmus; hematuria; dysmenorrhea; pelvic pain; dyspareunia; dysuria; dyscheziacyclic sciatica and/or pudendal/anogenital; pain; infertilityBladderLaparoscopic bladder resection with concomitant radical excision of DIE1; 6; 12
17Abesadze, et al. (31)2020GermanyCohort5435 ± 7Not mentionedDysmenorrhea, dysuria, dyschezie, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, cyclical pelvic pain, infertilityPosterior compartment of the peritoneumComplete excision> 60
18Sun, et al. (32)2020ChinaCohort5931.8 ± 3.621.4 ± 2.3Infertility dysmenorrhea; chronic pelvic painOvariesLaparoscopic excision60; 72
19Nirgianakis, et al. (33)2020SwitzerlandCohort5430.1 ± 5.023Infertility; dysuria or urinary urgency; dyschezia; deep dyspareunia; dysmenorrhea or pelvic painRectovaginal septumLaparoscopic segmental bowel resection36
20Ceccaroni, et al. (34)2019ItalyCohort16036.122.1Dysmenorrhea, dysuria, dyspareunia, and dyscheziaUreteral, parametrial, and bowelLaparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy1 -6 - 12
21Zheng, et al. (35)2019ChinaCohort1135 (range: 20 - 49)20.9 (range: 16.2 - 27.9)Infertility, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia ,rectal bleeding, tenesmus pelvic pain, dyschezia , micturition, intermenstrual bleedingBowelLaparoscopic surgery23.2
22Shaltout, et al. (36)2019EgyptRCT200Drainage only: 28.2 ± 4.1; cystectomy only: 26.6 ± 4.4; drainage & laparoscopy: 27.5 ± 3.7; cystectomy & laparoscopy: 27.9 ± 4.1Drainage only: 25.5 ± 1.3; cystectomy only: 25.3 ± 1.4; drainage & laparoscopy: 25.4 ± 1.3; cystectomy & laparoscopy: 25.3 ± 1.2Infertility; pelvic pain or pelvic mass unilateral & unilocular endometriomaOvariesLaparoscopic approaches24
23Roman, et al. (37)2019FranceRCT55 (Excision :27, Colorectal resection: 28 )Excision :30 (27 - 36) Colorectal resection: 28 (27 - 33)NRConstipation, frequent bowel movements, anal incontinence, dysuria, bladder atonyBowelExcision or Colorectal resection24 - 60
24Hernandez Gutierrez, et al. (9)2019SpainCohort143I: Segmental resection: 36.3 ± 5.6; II: Discoid resection: 34.9 ± 6.8; III: Nodule shaving: 36.6 ± 5.8Segmental resection: 21.8 ± 0.7; discoid resection: 21.05 ±1.2; nodule shaving: 21.6 ± 0.9Digestive symptomsIleum, cecum, appendixSegmental resection; discoid resection; nodule shaving46.4 ± 0.5 months for the group I, 42.2 ± 1.6 months for the group II, 39.7 ± 1.8 months for the group III
25Roman, et al. (38)2018FranceRCT3628 (range: 23 - 39)23.9 (range: 17.3 - 33.1)Dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic intermenstrual pelvic pain, digestive symptoms, urinary symptoms, infertilityRectaumConservative rectal surgery over segmental resection50 - 79
26Saavalainen, et al. (39)2016FinlandCohort5335.0 ± 4.423.1 ±3.7Dysmenorrhea, dysuria, pollakisuria, and/or hematuria, dyschezia and/or hematemesis, dyspareuniaUrinary tractLaparoscopic surgery120
27Roman, et al. (40)2016FranceCohort71 (Shaving:46, colorectal resection:25)Shaving: 41.5 (28 - 54), colorectal resection: 41 (31 - 54)Not mentionedDigestive symptomsRectumShaving; colorectal resectionShaving: 72 (60 - 120), colorectal resection : 103 (60 - 118)
28Roman, et al. (41)2016FranceCohort15Not mentionedNot mentionedDeep dyspareunia, severe constipation, feeling of incomplete rectal evacuationBowelColorectal resection (shaving, disc excision)12 - 36
29Afors, et al. (42)2016FranceCohort92Shaving: 32 ± 5.4; discoid: 29.47 ± 5.7; segmental resection: 31.12 ± 4.5Shaving:26.4 ± 3.4; discoid: 24.1 ± 5.2; segmental resection:27.3 ± 4.2Dysmenorrhea;dyspareunia; dyschezia; infertilityBowelShaving, discoid; segmental resection3 & 24
30Cao, et al. (43)2015ChinaCohort9334.99 ± 7.15Not mentionedPelvic pain, bowel symptoms, dysmenorrhea, infertilityCervical stump, vaginal stump, pelvic sidewall, bladder, ureter, rectum, cul-de-sac, rectovaginal septum, posterior fornix, uterosacral ligamentsLaparoscopic complete excision (n = 55), incomplete surgeryof DIE (n = 38)24
31Collinet, et al. (44)2014FrenchCohort16434.1 ± 7.324.4 ± 8.2Dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, menometrorrhagia , urinary functional signs , digestive functional signs, InfertilityRectum, bladder, ureter, uterosacral ligamentsRobot-assisted laparoscopy10.2
32Uccella, et al. (45)2014ItalyCohort10935 (20 - 54)21.5; (range: 16.3 - 31.6)Dysmenorrhea; pelvic pain; dyspareunia; dyschezia; lower back pain; urinary symptoms; hematuriaUreterLaparoscopic ureterolysis15 - 109
33Ruffo, et al. (11)2014ItalyCohort77427.5 (22 - 51)23.7 (18.5 - 31.5)Dyspareunia; constipation; pelvic pain; diarrheaBowelLaparoscopic bowel resections54
34Nirgianaki, et al. (46)2014SwitzerlandCohort8133 (24 - 49)22 (16 - 32)Infertility; dysuria or urinary urgency; dyschezia; deep dyspareunia; dysmenorrhea or pelvic painBowelLaparoscopic segmental bowel resection120
35Nezhat, et al. (47)2014USACohort2537.7 (range: 25 - 60)Not mentionedChest complaint; Shoulder pain; catamenial pneumothorax; hemoptysisThoracic and abdominopelvicCombined video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and traditional laparoscopy9; 12
36Mangler, et al. (48)2014GermanyCohort71Median: 33.35 (range: 24 - 39)Median: 23 (range: 17 - 31)Dysmenorrhea; hypermenorrhea dyspareunia; chronic pelvic pain defecating symptoms; dyschezia; hematochezia; cyclic rectal bleeding; diarrhea and constipation; dysuria; back pain InfertilityBowelSurgical nerve-sparing approachMedian:63.9 (range: 6 - 98)
37Neme, et al. (49)2013BrazilCohort10Median :37 (range: 29 - 48)Median : 23.5 (range: 20 - 26)Pelvic pain,Infertility,dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia,intestinal cramping, diarrhea, & constipationColorectalRobotic-assistedlaparoscopic colorectal resection12
38Schonman, et al. (50)2013IsraelCohort734.3 ± 5.5Not mentionedDysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, flank pain (urinary symptoms),UreterUreteral reimplantation42.3 - 20.0
39Mabrouk, et al. (51)2012ItalyCohort47Median: 34 (range : 25 - 39)Median: 21 (range: 17 - 29)Infertility, tenesmus, abdominal distension, rectal bleeding, constipation, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, pain on defecation, dysparaeunia, chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrheaColorectalLaparoscopic segmental resection18
40Koh, et al. (52)2012AustraliaCohort91Mean: 35 (range: 22 - 46)24.1Dysmenorrhea,menorrhagia, dyspareunia,infertility, pelvic/low-back pain, dyschezia, urgency/diarrhea/tenesmus, rectal bleedingRectalDisc resection, Segmental resections120
41Jelenc, et al. (53)2012SloveniaCohort52Mean: 34.4 (range: 22 - 62)Not mentionedDysmenorrhea, dyspareunia,chronic pelvic pain, infertilityColorectalLaparoscopic disk resection84

Abbreviations: BMI, Body Mass Index; DIE, deep infiltrating endometriosis.

3.5. Quality Assessment

The studies were evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. This tool is specifically designed to assess the quality of empirical studies, including primary research based on experiments, observations, or simulations. Its primary purpose is to provide a systematic approach for appraising the quality of these studies (54, 55). The tool comprises five items for each category, with responses marked as "yes," "no," or "not known." In the scoring system, a "yes" answer is scored as 1, while all other responses are scored as 0. A higher score indicates higher quality. For the final quality assessment, scores above half (more than 50%) were considered high quality (Table 2).

Table 2.

Appraising of the 41 Studies Based on Mixed Method Appraisal Tool; Version 18 a

Selected StudiesAppraisal QualityQuantitative Non-randomized Criteria
Are the Participants Representative of the Target Population?Are Measurements Appropriate Regarding Both the Outcome and Intervention (or Exposure)?Are There Complete Outcome Data?Are the Confounders Accounted for in the Design and Analysis?During the Study Period, Is the Intervention Administered (or Exposure Occurred) as Intended?
Missori, et al. (15)HYYYYY
Han, et al. (16)HYYYYY
Zhang, et al. (17)HYYYYY
Yang, et al. (18)HYNYCY
Leborne, et al. (19)HYYYYY
Zhang et al. (20)HYYYCY
Kim et al. (21)HYYYYY
Roman et al. (22)HYYYCY
Ceccaroni, et al. (23)HYYYYY
Sarbazi, et al. (24)HYYYYY
Yela, et al. (25)HYYYYY
Vidal, et al. (26)HYYYYY
Parra, et al. (27)HYYYYY
Jayot, et al. (28)HYYYYY
Abesadze, et al. (29)HYYYCY
Ceccaroni, et al. (30)HYYYYY
Abesadze, et al. (31)HYYYCY
Sun, et al. (32)HYYYCY
Nirgianakis, et al. (33)HYYNYY
Ceccaroni, et al. (34)HYYYYY
Zheng, et al. (35)HYCYCY
Shaltout, et al. (36)HYYYCY
Roman, et al. (37)HYYYCY
Hernandez Gutierrez, et al. (9)HYYYYY
Roman, et al. (38)HYYYYY
Saavalainen, et al. (39)HYYYYY
Roman, et al. (40)HYYYYY
Roman, at al. (41)HYYYCY
Afors, et al. (42)HYYYYY
Cao, et al. (43)HYYYNY
Collinet, et al. (44)HYYYYY
Uccella, et al. (45)HYYYYY
Ruffo, et al. (11)HYYYYY
Nirgianaki, et al. (46)HYYYCY
Nezhat, et al. (47)HYYYNC
Mangler, et al. (48)HYYYYC
Neme, et al. (49)HYYYCC
Schonman, et al. (50)HYYCNY
Mabrouk, et al. (51)HYYYYY
Koh, et al. (52)HYYYYY
Jelenc, et al. (53)HYYYCY

a Scoring: Y, yes, N, no, C, can’t tell, H, high.

3.6. Data Extraction

Two researchers independently conducted the study selection and validity assessment, resolving any discrepancies by consulting a third researcher. The studies extracted information on various parameters, including author, year, study design, country, age, number of participants, Body Mass Index (BMI), symptoms, location of endometriosis, surgical techniques, recurrence rate, post-surgical pregnancy rate, and follow-up duration (Table 1).

3.7. Data Synthesis

A comprehensive analysis was conducted by performing a quantitative synthesis using STATA software version 17. The random-effects model was employed for the meta-analysis due to the inclusion of studies from diverse populations. This model accounts for both within-study and between-study variances, thereby ensuring a thorough analysis (56). The Q Cochrane statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity, while the I² index was utilized to quantify the extent of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was interpreted as (i) mild if the I² value is below 25%, (ii) moderate if the I² value ranges from 25% to 50%, (iii) severe if the I² value falls between 50% and 75%, and (iv) highly severe if the I² value exceeds 75% (57).

The key measures selected for this study were the prevalence of endometriosis and the pregnancy rate after surgery. To determine the overall prevalence, numerical findings for these conditions were combined, and a pooled prevalence was calculated. Additionally, a 95% confidence interval (CI) was provided to indicate the range of possible prevalence values.

To evaluate moderator effects, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression, an assessment was performed considering the number of studies in each group. In cases where the number of studies in a particular group was fewer than four, meta-regression was employed. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, as well as Begg's Test and Egger's Test (58). Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the Jackknife method (59).

4. Results

4.1. Study Screening & Selection Process

The initial search yielded 4,610 results. Two authors independently evaluated the eligibility of these studies, with disagreements resolved through consensus by consulting a third author. In the first stage, 2,680 irrelevant or duplicate articles were excluded. After reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles, additional papers were excluded. Ultimately, a total of 41 eligible studies were systematically reviewed, and 34 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis (Figure 1). Key findings from the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

The literature search results and the screening process based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart
The literature search results and the screening process based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart
Figure 1.

The literature search results and the screening process based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart

4.2. Studies Characteristics

Thirty-four papers, comprising 6,514 individuals from 14 countries (e.g., Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Italy, Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Slovenia, and the USA), were included in the analysis regarding endometriosis recurrence. The two countries with the highest number of eligible studies were France (n = 7) and Italy (n = 5). The smallest sample size was 7 participants, and the largest sample size was 1,332.

The mean age of participants was 33.92 years, with a range of 27.5 to 41 years (reported in 34 studies). The mean BMI of participants was 23.18 kg/m², with a range of 20.9 to 26.9 kg/m² (reported in 22 studies). The mean follow-up duration was 43.21 months, ranging from 10 to 120 months (reported in 35 studies). The most frequently reported endometriosis lesion sites were bowel (n = 9), rectal (n = 8), and DIE (n = 7).

4.3. Endometriosis Recurrence

The pooled estimated prevalence of endometriosis recurrence was 13% [95% CI: 11 - 17%, I²: 96.5%, Tau²: 0.01, Observations: 35]. Figure 2 presents the forest plot illustrating the pooled prevalence of endometriosis recurrence across the included studies.

The pooled estimated prevalence of endometriosis recurrence
The pooled estimated prevalence of endometriosis recurrence
Figure 2.

The pooled estimated prevalence of endometriosis recurrence

Based on Egger’s test (P = 0.056) and the asymmetric funnel plot (Figure 3), the likelihood of publication bias appeared probable. To further evaluate this, the fill-and-trim method was applied. Using this method, no additional studies were imputed, and the probability of publication bias was ultimately ruled out.

Additionally, sensitivity analysis (Figure 4) indicated that the pooled effect size was not influenced by the effect of any single study.

4.4. Pregnancy Rate After Surgery

Twenty-two papers, comprising 2,039 individuals with infertility from nine countries (e.g., Brazil, China, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Iran, and Slovenia), were included in the analysis of pregnancy rates after surgery for endometriosis. The highest number of eligible studies were from China (n = 6). The smallest sample size was 7 participants, and the largest was 774.

The mean age of participants was 33.44 years, ranging from 27.5 to 37 years (reported in 22 studies). The mean BMI of participants was 23.41 kg/m², ranging from 20.9 to 25.7 kg/m² (reported in 15 studies). The mean follow-up duration was 44.30 months, ranging from 10 to 120 months (reported in 22 studies). The most frequently reported endometriosis lesion sites were DIE (n = 8 studies).

The pooled estimated pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis was 47% [95% CI: 36 - 57%, I²: 96.47%, Tau²: 0.05]. Figure 5 presents the forest plot illustrating the pooled prevalence of pregnancy rates after surgery for endometriosis across the included studies.

Pooled estimated pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis
Pooled estimated pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis
Figure 5.

Pooled estimated pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis

Based on Egger’s test (P < 0.001) and the asymmetric funnel plot (Figure 6), publication bias appears to be probable.

Probable publication bias was addressed using the fill-and-trim method. In this process, five studies were imputed, resulting in a corrected pooled prevalence of the pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis of 37.9% (95% CI: 26.8 - 48.9%). The funnel plot after trimming is presented in Figure 7.

Probable publication bias
Probable publication bias
Figure 7.

Probable publication bias

Sensitivity analysis (Figure 8) demonstrated that the pooled effect size was not influenced by the effect of any single study. Based on meta-regression (Table 3), none of the examined variables significantly predicted the prevalence of the pregnancy rate after surgery for endometriosis.

The pooled estimated prevalence of preoperative dysmenorrhea was 78% (22 papers, 95% CI: 64 - 92%, I²: 99.40%, Tau²: 0.11), while postoperative dysmenorrhea was 24% (8 papers, 95% CI: 14 - 34%, I²: 97.51%, Tau²: 0.02).

Table 3.

Meta Regression of Endometriosis Recurrence and Pregnancy Rate Based on Different

VariablesEndometriosis RecurrencePregnancy Rate
No. of StudiesCoeff.S.E.PI2 res. (%)R2 (%)Tau2No. of StudiesCoeff.S.E.PI2 res. (%)R2 (%)Tau2
Country350.0020.0050.6195.4400.009220 .020.020.1995.944.010.05
Study design350.020.030.5395.5100.009220.150.110.1796.345.420.05
Mean age340.0020.0050.7894.2500.00922-0.0040.020.8495.8600.06
Mean BMI220.020.010.1891.983.130.006150.050.050.3897.0100.06
Fallow up time35-0.0010.00060.3695.390.130.009220.0010.0020.4596.3100.05
Endometriosis lesion site350.0080.0070.2195.311.970.009220.020.020.4996.1400.05

Abbreviation: BMI, Body Mass Index.

The pooled estimated prevalence of preoperative chronic pelvic pain was 50% (17 papers, 95% CI: 35 - 64%, I²: 98.98%, Tau²: 0.09), and postoperative chronic pelvic pain was 31% (7 papers, 95% CI: 15 - 37%, I²: 96.21%, Tau²: 0.04).

The pooled estimated prevalence of preoperative dyspareunia was 56% (20 papers, 95% CI: 42 - 71%, I²: 98.91%, Tau²: 0.10), while postoperative dyspareunia was 22% (6 papers, 95% CI: 5 - 39%, I²: 96.55%, Tau²: 0.04).

The pooled estimated prevalence of preoperative dyschezia was 44% (15 papers, 95% CI: 32 - 57%, I²: 98.19%, Tau²: 0.06), and postoperative dyschezia was 21% (5 papers, 95% CI: 5 - 36%, I²: 95.97%, Tau²: 0.03).

5. Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified 41 studies evaluating pregnancy and recurrence rates after surgical treatments in women with DIE. The results demonstrated that the prevalence of endometriosis recurrence was 13%, while the pregnancy rate after surgery was estimated at 47%. Additionally, we concluded that the postoperative prevalence of dysmenorrhea was 24%, chronic pelvic pain 31%, dyspareunia 22%, and dyschezia 21%. Compared to preoperative rates, the prevalence of these symptoms had decreased.

A study investigating the efficacy of laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy in patients with DIE involving the ureter, parametrial region, and bowel showed that among 60 patients with DIE, the recurrence rate was reported as 1.2% after six months of follow-up. This study concluded that laparoscopic partial cystectomy for DIE is the gold standard treatment due to its low recurrence rate (30). Ferrero et al. (2020) examined the risk of recurrence after segmental resection for rectosigmoid endometriosis. After a five-year follow-up, imaging detected rectosigmoid endometriosis recurrence in five patients. Surgical and histological diagnoses confirmed recurrence in six out of seven patients (60).

Hernandez Gutierrez et al. (2019) compared postoperative complications and recurrence rates among three surgical techniques: Segmental resection, discoid excision, and nodule shaving. Their findings revealed that segmental resection had a significantly higher incidence of severe postoperative complications compared to discoid excision or the shaving technique (23.5% versus 5% versus 0%, respectively). However, over an extended follow-up period, the shaving group exhibited a higher recurrence rate (12.7%) compared to the discoid group (5%) and the segmental resection group (1.3%) (9).

Cao et al. (2015) evaluated the efficacy and safety of complete versus incomplete excision of DIE. Their results indicated that recurrence rates were significantly higher in the incomplete excision group (29.4% vs. 3.9%) (43). A comprehensive analysis and meta-analysis investigating recurrence following surgical treatment for colorectal endometriosis found that the risk of recurrence was higher after rectal shaving compared to segmental resection and disc excision in cases with confirmed histological recurrence. However, no significant difference was observed between the recurrence rates of disc excision and segmental resection (61).

Another review study highlighted that incomplete removal of endometriosis is a major contributing factor to recurrence, as documented in the literature. The extent of lesion excision significantly influences recurrent symptoms, especially based on the type of hysterectomy performed. Notably, no studies have specifically compared recurrence rates of endometriosis following standard hysterectomy with robotic-assisted hysterectomy (62).

In the present study, we reported an overall recurrence rate of DIE after surgical procedures (regardless of the type of surgery and the location of endometriosis) as 13%. Several risk factors appear to influence the recurrence rate of endometriosis. These factors include young women affected by the condition who desire pregnancy but decline hormonal treatments following surgery; the location of endometriosis, particularly when it affects the bladder and uterus; women who are obese or overweight; the primary surgical approach employed; and incomplete removal of lesions (7, 12). Additionally, the presence of microscopic satellite lesions adjacent to the main lesion, which may remain undetected during surgery, can contribute to an increased incidence of recurrence (63, 64).

Regarding symptoms associated with DIE (dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia), our findings showed that surgery improved these symptoms compared to the preoperative condition. When assessing pain in women with endometriosis during treatment trials, three factors are crucial: The use of a valid pain scale, time-dependent assessment, and consideration of placebo or sham surgery effects (61).

Jayot et al. (2020) investigated various factors in a group of patients who underwent discoid resection. These factors included the conversion rate to segmental resection, the necessity for double discoid resection, and the rates of complications and recurrence. Their findings revealed no significant differences in complication rates or voiding dysfunction between double and single discoid resection groups (28).

In a 2006 analysis, the crude pain recurrence rate in women with endometriosis undergoing first-line conservative laparoscopic surgery was reported to be 21%, and the crude disease relapse rate was 9% (5). Many studies consider recurrence as the reappearance of pain; however, this definition has limitations due to the subjective nature of pain evaluation (40). Although surgical excision of endometriosis improves pain and enhances fertility, recurrence can exacerbate pain and reduce fertility, negatively impacting quality of life and increasing personal and social costs.

Surgical techniques may also influence symptom recurrence. For example, a study revealed that individuals who underwent hysterectomy with ovarian conservation for endometriosis had a significantly higher risk of recurrent pain and reoperation compared to those who underwent oophorectomy. Specifically, the former group had a 6.1-fold greater risk of recurrent pain and an 8.1-fold greater risk of reoperation (65).

Among the strengths of this study are the following: Separating the types of endometriosis and the surgical techniques used for each type of lesion, examining other factors affecting endometriosis recurrence rates, such as BMI, and evaluating factors influencing the effectiveness of surgical methods, in addition to recurrence rates, such as pregnancy rates (distinguishing between natural pregnancy and ART use). Moreover, the study assessed the recurrence of symptoms related to endometriosis, such as dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia.

One limitation of this study is the lack of separate recurrence rate estimates for each surgical approach or for each specific site of endometriosis. Future studies should address these issues in their analyses. Additionally, it is suggested to evaluate recurrence rates in cases where medical approaches are used post-surgery.

Although significant efforts were made to conduct a comprehensive and precise search within scientific databases, there remains a possibility that some relevant studies were overlooked due to constraints such as limited resource accessibility, the selection of specific search terms, or the restricted publication of certain articles. Furthermore, while study quality was assessed using established and validated tools, the potential for human error in scoring or interpreting evaluation criteria cannot be entirely excluded. These limitations may affect the outcomes despite diligent attempts to minimize biases.

5.1. Conclusions

Two critical considerations in selecting the treatment approach for women with DIE are the recurrence and pregnancy rates following treatment. Recurrence after DIE treatment has a significant negative impact on women's quality of life. Therefore, efforts should focus on improving their quality of life by selecting the most effective treatment approach.

In this study, the overall recurrence rate for DIE following various surgical approaches was reported to be approximately 13%, while the pregnancy rate was 47%. These findings provide valuable insights for choosing the best treatment method for women who are suitable candidates for surgery. However, due to the diversity of surgical methods used and the limited number of cases for each method, further studies with larger sample sizes and varied designs are needed. These future studies would enable more informed decisions in this field.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Saunders PTK, Horne AW. Endometriosis: Etiology, pathobiology, and therapeutic prospects. Cell. 2021;184(11):2807-24. [PubMed ID: 34048704]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.041.

  • 2.

    Moradi Y, Shams-Beyranvand M, Khateri S, Gharahjeh S, Tehrani S, Varse F, et al. A systematic review on the prevalence of endometriosis in women. Indian J Med Res. 2021;154(3):446-54. [PubMed ID: 35345070]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9131783]. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_817_18.

  • 3.

    Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, D'Hoore A, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Penninckx F, Vergote I, et al. Surgical treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(3):311-26. [PubMed ID: 21233128]. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq057.

  • 4.

    Li XY, Chao XP, Leng JH, Zhang W, Zhang JJ, Dai Y, et al. Risk factors for postoperative recurrence of ovarian endometriosis: long-term follow-up of 358 women. J Ovarian Res. 2019;12(1):79. [PubMed ID: 31470880]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6717364]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0552-y.

  • 5.

    Vercellini P, Fedele L, Aimi G, De Giorgi O, Consonni D, Crosignani PG. Reproductive performance, pain recurrence and disease relapse after conservative surgical treatment for endometriosis: the predictive value of the current classification system. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(10):2679-85. [PubMed ID: 16790608]. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del230.

  • 6.

    Vercellini P, Frontino G, De Giorgi O, Aimi G, Zaina B, Crosignani PG. Comparison of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device versus expectant management after conservative surgery for symptomatic endometriosis: a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):305-9. [PubMed ID: 12909492]. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00608-3.

  • 7.

    Ceccaroni M, Bounous VE, Clarizia R, Mautone D, Mabrouk M. Recurrent endometriosis: a battle against an unknown enemy. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24(6):464-74. [PubMed ID: 31550940]. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2019.1662391.

  • 8.

    Olive DL, Pritts EA. Treatment of endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(4):266-75. [PubMed ID: 11474666]. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200107263450407.

  • 9.

    Hernandez Gutierrez A, Spagnolo E, Zapardiel I, Garcia-Abadillo Seivane R, Lopez Carrasco A, Salas Bolivar P, et al. Post-operative complications and recurrence rate after treatment of bowel endometriosis: Comparison of three techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2019;4:100083. [PubMed ID: 31517307]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6728789]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100083.

  • 10.

    Taylor E, Williams C. Surgical treatment of endometriosis: location and patterns of disease at reoperation. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):57-61. [PubMed ID: 19006792]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.085.

  • 11.

    Ruffo G, Scopelliti F, Manzoni A, Sartori A, Rossini R, Ceccaroni M, et al. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic bowel resections for deep infiltrating endometriosis: a single-center experience after 900 cases. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:463058. [PubMed ID: 24877097]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4022010]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/463058.

  • 12.

    Ianieri MM, Mautone D, Ceccaroni M. Recurrence in Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(5):786-93. [PubMed ID: 29357317]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.12.025.

  • 13.

    Kalaitzopoulos DR, Samartzis N, Kolovos GN, Mareti E, Samartzis EP, Eberhard M, et al. Treatment of endometriosis: a review with comparison of 8 guidelines. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):397. [PubMed ID: 34844587]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8628449]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01545-5.

  • 14.

    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906. [PubMed ID: 33789826]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906.

  • 15.

    Missori G, Bonaduce I, Ricciardolo AA, Marchesini N, Alboni C, Varliero F, et al. Minimally-invasive multidisciplinary treatment of deep endometriosis: 103 cases. Laparoscopic Surgery. 2024;8:3. https://doi.org/10.21037/ls-24-2.

  • 16.

    Han J, Zheng L. Analysis of Risk Factors for Bleeding and Recurrence of Ovarian Endometriomas after Laparoscopic Surgery and Its Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes. Clin Experimental Obstetrics Gynecol. 2024;51(1). https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5101005.

  • 17.

    Zhang S, Yu H, Dong Z, Chen Y, Shan W, Zhang W, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis based on retroperitoneal pelvic spaces anatomy: a retrospective study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):10785. [PubMed ID: 37402839]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10319708]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38034-8.

  • 18.

    Yang X, Bao M, Hang T, Sun W, Liu Y, Yang Y, et al. Status and related factors of postoperative recurrence of ovarian endometriosis: a cross-sectional study of 874 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307(5):1495-501. [PubMed ID: 36708425]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10110635]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-06932-x.

  • 19.

    Leborne P, Huberlant S, Masia F, de Tayrac R, Letouzey V, Allegre L. Clinical outcomes following surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):21800. [PubMed ID: 36526707]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9758215]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25751-9.

  • 20.

    Zhang N, Sun S, Zheng Y, Yi X, Qiu J, Zhang X, et al. Reproductive and postsurgical outcomes of infertile women with deep infiltrating endometriosis. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):83. [PubMed ID: 35313876]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8939234]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01666-5.

  • 21.

    Kim SJ, Choi SH, Won S, Shim S, Lee N, Kim M, et al. Cumulative Recurrence Rate and Risk Factors for Recurrent Abdominal Wall Endometriosis after Surgical Treatment in a Single Institution. Yonsei Med J. 2022;63(5):446-51. [PubMed ID: 35512747]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9086694]. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.63.5.446.

  • 22.

    Roman H, Huet E, Bridoux V, Khalil H, Hennetier C, Bubenheim M, et al. Long-term Outcomes Following Surgical Management of Rectal Endometriosis: Seven-year Follow-up of Patients Enrolled in a Randomized Trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29(6):767-75. [PubMed ID: 35181523]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2022.02.007.

  • 23.

    Ceccaroni M, Clarizia R, Mussi EA, Stepniewska AK, De Mitri P, Ceccarello M, et al. “The Sword in the Stone”: radical excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel shaving—a single-centre experience on 703 consecutive patients. Surgical Endoscopy. 2022:1-14.

  • 24.

    Sarbazi F, Akbari E, Karimi A, Nouri B, Noori Ardebili SH. The Clinical Outcome of Laparoscopic Surgery for Endometriosis on Pain, Ovarian Reserve, and Cancer Antigen 125 (CA-125): A Cohort Study. Int J Fertil Steril. 2021;15(4):275-9. [PubMed ID: 34913296]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8530215]. https://doi.org/10.22074/IJFS.2021.137035.1018.

  • 25.

    Yela DA, Vitale SG, Vizotto MP, Benetti-Pinto CL. Risk factors for recurrence of deep infiltrating endometriosis after surgical treatment. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(8):2713-9. [PubMed ID: 33998109]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14837.

  • 26.

    Vidal F, Guerby P, Simon C, Lesourd F, Cartron G, Parinaud J, et al. Spontaneous pregnancy rate following surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis in infertile women: The impact of the learning curve. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(1):101942. [PubMed ID: 33049364]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101942.

  • 27.

    Parra RS, Feitosa MR, Camargo HP, Valerio FP, Zanardi JVC, Rocha J, et al. The impact of laparoscopic surgery on the symptoms and wellbeing of patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis and bowel involvement. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;42(1):75-80. [PubMed ID: 32538257]. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2020.1773785.

  • 28.

    Jayot A, Bendifallah S, Abo C, Arfi A, Owen C, Darai E. Feasibility, Complications, and Recurrence after Discoid Resection for Colorectal Endometriosis: A Series of 93 Cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(1):212-9. [PubMed ID: 31326634]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.07.011.

  • 29.

    Abesadze E, Chiantera V, Sehouli J, Mechsner S. Post-operative management and follow-up of surgical treatment in the case of rectovaginal and retrocervical endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;302(4):957-67. [PubMed ID: 32661754]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7471187]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05686-0.

  • 30.

    Ceccaroni M, Clarizia R, Ceccarello M, De Mitri P, Roviglione G, Mautone D, et al. Total laparoscopic bladder resection in the management of deep endometriosis: "take it or leave it." Radicality versus persistence. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(8):1683-90. [PubMed ID: 31494691]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04107-4.

  • 31.

    Abesadze E, Sehouli J, Mechsner S, Chiantera V. Possible Role of the Posterior Compartment Peritonectomy, as a Part of the Complex Surgery, Regarding Recurrence Rate, Improvement of Symptoms and Fertility Rate in Patients with Endometriosis, Long-Term Follow-Up. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(5):1103-11. [PubMed ID: 31449906]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.08.019.

  • 32.

    Sun TT, Chen SK, Li XY, Zhang JJ, Dai Y, Shi JH, et al. Fertility Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cystectomy in Infertile Patients with Stage III-IV Endometriosis: a Cohort with 6-10 years of Follow-up. Adv Ther. 2020;37(5):2159-68. [PubMed ID: 32200536]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01299-w.

  • 33.

    Nirgianakis K, Ma L, McKinnon B, Mueller MD. Recurrence Patterns after Surgery in Patients with Different Endometriosis Subtypes: A Long-Term Hospital-Based Cohort Study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2). [PubMed ID: 32054117]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7073694]. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020496.

  • 34.

    Ceccaroni M, Ceccarello M, Caleffi G, Clarizia R, Scarperi S, Pastorello M, et al. Total Laparoscopic Ureteroneocystostomy for Ureteral Endometriosis: A Single-Center Experience of 160 Consecutive Patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(1):78-86. [PubMed ID: 29656149]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.03.031.

  • 35.

    Zheng Y, Cheng Q, Chang K, Ruan J, Tian Q, Gu S, et al. Analysis of the Predictive Factors for the Recurrence of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: A 2-Year Prospective Study. Reproductive Dev Med. 2019;3(4):213-21. https://doi.org/10.4103/2096-2924.274543.

  • 36.

    Shaltout MF, Elsheikhah A, Maged AM, Elsherbini MM, Zaki SS, Dahab S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a new technique for laparoscopic management of ovarian endometriosis preventing recurrence and keeping ovarian reserve. J Ovarian Res. 2019;12(1):66. [PubMed ID: 31325962]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6642736]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0542-0.

  • 37.

    Roman H, Tuech JJ, Huet E, Bridoux V, Khalil H, Hennetier C, et al. Excision versus colorectal resection in deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum: 5-year follow-up of patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(12):2362-71. [PubMed ID: 31820806]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6936722]. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez217.

  • 38.

    Roman H, Chanavaz-Lacheray I, Ballester M, Bendifallah S, Touleimat S, Tuech JJ, et al. High postoperative fertility rate following surgical management of colorectal endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1669-76. [PubMed ID: 30052994]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6112593]. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey146.

  • 39.

    Saavalainen L, Heikinheimo O, Tiitinen A, Harkki P. Deep infiltrating endometriosis affecting the urinary tract-surgical treatment and fertility outcomes in 2004-2013. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13(4):435-44. [PubMed ID: 28003801]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5133280]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0958-0.

  • 40.

    Roman H, Milles M, Vassilieff M, Resch B, Tuech JJ, Huet E, et al. Long-term functional outcomes following colorectal resection versus shaving for rectal endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):762 e1-9. [PubMed ID: 27393269]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.055.

  • 41.

    Roman H, Hennetier C, Darwish B, Badescu A, Csanyi M, Aziz M, et al. Bowel occult microscopic endometriosis in resection margins in deep colorectal endometriosis specimens has no impact on short-term postoperative outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):423-9 e7. [PubMed ID: 26474734]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.030.

  • 42.

    Afors K, Centini G, Fernandes R, Murtada R, Zupi E, Akladios C, et al. Segmental and Discoid Resection are Preferential to Bowel Shaving for Medium-Term Symptomatic Relief in Patients With Bowel Endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(7):1123-9. [PubMed ID: 27544881]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.813.

  • 43.

    Cao Q, Lu F, Feng WW, Ding JX, Hua KQ. Comparison of complete and incomplete excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(11):21497-506. [PubMed ID: 26885098]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4723943].

  • 44.

    Collinet P, Leguevaque P, Neme RM, Cela V, Barton-Smith P, Hebert T, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy for deep infiltrating endometriosis: international multicentric retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(8):2474-9. [PubMed ID: 24609708]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3480-3.

  • 45.

    Uccella S, Cromi A, Casarin J, Bogani G, Pinelli C, Serati M, et al. Laparoscopy for ureteral endometriosis: surgical details, long-term follow-up, and fertility outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):160-166 e2. [PubMed ID: 24842674]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.055.

  • 46.

    Nirgianakis K, McKinnon B, Imboden S, Knabben L, Gloor B, Mueller MD. Laparoscopic management of bowel endometriosis: resection margins as a predictor of recurrence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(12):1262-7. [PubMed ID: 25175300]. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12490.

  • 47.

    Nezhat C, Main J, Paka C, Nezhat A, Beygui RE. Multidisciplinary treatment for thoracic and abdominopelvic endometriosis. JSLS. 2014;18(3). [PubMed ID: 25392636]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4154426]. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00312.

  • 48.

    Mangler M, Herbstleb J, Mechsner S, Bartley J, Schneider A, Kohler C. Long-term follow-up and recurrence rate after mesorectum-sparing bowel resection among women with rectovaginal endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125(3):266-9. [PubMed ID: 24726619]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.12.010.

  • 49.

    Neme RM, Schraibman V, Okazaki S, Maccapani G, Chen WJ, Domit CD, et al. Deep infiltrating colorectal endometriosis treated with robotic-assisted rectosigmoidectomy. JSLS. 2013;17(2):227-34. [PubMed ID: 23925016]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3771789]. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13693422521836.

  • 50.

    Schonman R, Dotan Z, Weintraub AY, Goldenberg M, Seidman DS, Schiff E, et al. Long-term follow-up after ureteral reimplantation in patients with severe deep infiltrating endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171(1):146-9. [PubMed ID: 24017962]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.08.027.

  • 51.

    Mabrouk M, Spagnolo E, Raimondo D, D'Errico A, Caprara G, Malvi D, et al. Segmental bowel resection for colorectal endometriosis: is there a correlation between histological pattern and clinical outcomes? Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1314-9. [PubMed ID: 22416007]. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des048.

  • 52.

    Koh CE, Juszczyk K, Cooper MJ, Solomon MJ. Management of deeply infiltrating endometriosis involving the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(9):925-31. [PubMed ID: 22874598]. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31825f3092.

  • 53.

    Jelenc F, Ribic-Pucelj M, Juvan R, Kobal B, Sinkovec J, Salamun V. Laparoscopic rectal resection of deep infiltrating endometriosis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(1):66-9. [PubMed ID: 22166117]. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2011.0307.

  • 54.

    Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information. 2018;34(4):285-91. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-180221.

  • 55.

    Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):459-67. [PubMed ID: 29464873]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884.

  • 56.

    Hox JJ, De Leeuw ED. Multilevel models for meta-analysis. In: De Leeuw ED, editor. Multilevel modeling. United Kingdom: Psychology Press; 2003. p. 87-104.

  • 57.

    Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193-206. [PubMed ID: 16784338]. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.

  • 58.

    Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2005. p. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch1.

  • 59.

    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2014.

  • 60.

    Ferrero S, Roberti Maggiore UL, Biscaldi E, Altieri M, Vellone VG, Stabilini C, et al. Bowel Occult Microscopic Endometriosis in Resection Margins in Deep Colorectal Endometriosis Specimens Has No Impact on the Long-Term Risk of Recurrence. Fertility Sterility. 2020;114(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.579.

  • 61.

    Bendifallah S, Vesale E, Darai E, Thomassin-Naggara I, Bazot M, Tuech JJ, et al. Recurrence after Surgery for Colorectal Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(2):441-451 e2. [PubMed ID: 31785416]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.791.

  • 62.

    Rizk B, Fischer AS, Lotfy HA, Turki R, Zahed HA, Malik R, et al. Recurrence of endometriosis after hysterectomy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(4):219-27. [PubMed ID: 25593697]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4286861].

  • 63.

    Bedaiwy MA, Pope R, Henry D, Zanotti K, Mahajan S, Hurd W, et al. Standardization of laparoscopic pelvic examination: a proposal of a novel system. Minim Invasive Surg. 2013;2013:153235. [PubMed ID: 24490066]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3892934]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/153235.

  • 64.

    Guo SW. Recurrence of endometriosis and its control. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15(4):441-61. [PubMed ID: 19279046]. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp007.

  • 65.

    Namnoum AB, Hickman TN, Goodman SB, Gehlbach DL, Rock JA. Incidence of symptom recurrence after hysterectomy for endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(5):898-902. [PubMed ID: 7589631]. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57899-6.