Gynecology & Obstetrics

Review Article

Kondo et al., Gynecol Obstetric 2013, S3 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0932.S3-001

Open Access

Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection?
William Kondo1,2*, Reitan Ribeiro2, Carlos Trippia3 and Monica Tessmann Zomer1,2
Department of Gynaecology, Sugisawa Medical Center, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil Department of Gynaecology, Vita Batel Hospital, Curitiba, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil 3 Department of Radiology, Roentgen Diagnostico Institute, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
1 2

Abstract
Intestinal Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis (DIE) is defined as the lesion infiltrating at least the muscular layer of the bowel and it usually affects the rectosigmoid colon. Medical treatment plays an important role in terms of pain relief in women with such lesions, but has a temporary effect. Surgical treatment is considered the gold standard for symptomatic patients and may be conducted by the means of conservative or radical procedures. The former may be called nodulectomy and include the rectal shaving, the mucosal skinning and the full-thickness anterior rectal wall excision/disc resection. The latter is called segmental bowel resection. Each type of procedure has different indications, outcomes, and complications. In this paper, we provide the rationale for the surgical treatment of intestinal DIE affecting the rectosigmoid colon.

Colorectal; Bowel

Keywords: Deep infiltrating endometriosis; Laparoscopy; Surgery; Introduction

Endometriosis is a complex gynecological disease defined by the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity [1]. It mainly affects reproductive aged women and its prevalence in the general female population is estimated to be around 10% [2,3]. Three clinical presentations of the disease have been described and they may occur alone or coexist: peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis (DIE) [4]. The latter is considered the most agressive presentation of endometriosis, penetrating more than 5 mm in affected tissues [5], and affecting approximately 20% of all women with the disease [6,7]. The hallmark of DIE is the multifocal pattern of the lesions [8-11]. Intestinal DIE is defined as the lesion infiltrating at least the muscular layer of the bowel [11] and it usually affects the rectosigmoid colon. Its prevalence is estimated to be 45 to 56% in women with DIE [8,9] and 57.1% in women with ovarian endometrioma [12]. Medical treatment plays an important role in terms of pain relief in women with DIE, but has a temporary effect [13]. The associated fibrosis and sclerosis do not improve after hormonal treatment [14] and it is not clear if it prevents disease progression, especially in more severe cases [15]. Due to persistent or recurrent pain, and the marked anatomic distortion caused by intestinal DIE, surgery is considered the gold standard for symptomatic disease. Surgery is also indicated for intestinal DIE lesions leading to luminal stenosis and obstructive symptoms. In addition, the clinical treatment has no benefit on endometriosis-related infertility [1]. There are two options of surgical management of intestinal DIE affecting the rectosigmoid. The conservative forms of surgery may be called nodulectomy and include the rectal shaving, the mucosal skinning and the full-thickness anterior rectal wall excision/disc resection. The radical surgery is called segmental bowel resection [16]. Each type of procedure has different indications, outcomes, and complications. The purpose of this paper is to provide the rationale for the surgical treatment of intestinal DIE affecting the rectosigmoid colon.

intestinal DIE [8,15,17]. There are 2 important basic characteristics of intestinal DIE: multifocality and multicentricity. The former is defined as the presence of other lesions within a 2 cm area to the main DIE lesion and the latter is defined as the presence of other lesions beyond 2 cm from the main DIE lesion. They seem to occur in 62% and 38% of surgical specimens, respectively [18]. In the series of Piketty et al. [9], the mean number of intestinal DIE implants per patient was 2.7 1.5. The anatomical distribution of the lesions along the bowel was: Rectum: 96% Sigmoid: 38.7% Ileum: 22.7% Cecum: 10.7% Appendix: 10.7% Omentum: 4%

Preoperative Imaging Studies

Several imaging studies have been used to preoperatively evaluate the DIE lesions, including transvaginal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis, and transrectal ultrasound [9,19-24]. No matter which exam is performed, the aim of the preoperative study is to completely map all the deep implants of the disease, mainly those affecting the digestive and/or urinary tract [25].

*Corresponding author: Dr. William Kondo, Department of Gynaecology, Sugisawa Medical Center, Curitiba, Parana, Avenida Getulio Vargas, 3163 ap 21, Curitiba, PR, Brazil, Zip Code: 80240-041, Tel: (55) (41) 9222-1065; E-mail: williamkondo@yahoo.com Received December 17, 2013; Accepted January 14, 2013; Published January 20, 2013 Citation: Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2013) Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection? Gynecol Obstetric S3: 001. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.S3001 Copyright: 2013 Kondo W, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Anatomical Distribution of the Intestinal Die Lesions

The rectosigmoid colon is the most frequently affected site by
Gynecol Obstetric

Endometriosis and Endoscopy Surgery

ISSN:2161-0932 Gynecology an open access journal

Citation: Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2013) Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection? Gynecol Obstetric S3: 001. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.S3-001 Page 2 of 5

Specifically for the intestinal DIE lesions, the preoperative imaging investigation should contain the following informations [19-21]: Size of the lesion; Depth of bowel wall infiltration; Distance between the intestinal DIE lesion and the anal verge; Percentage of the intestinal circumference affected by the lesion; Presence of multifocal/multicentric intestinal DIE lesions.

Nevertheless, some authors [30] have been using a double-stapling anterior disc resection technique with the intent to resect bigger lesions (up to 60 mm in diameter) with good results. For segmental bowel resection: Most of the authors indicate segmental bowel resection for rectosigmoid DIE lesions bigger than 30 mm, stenotic lesions (that does not allow the passage of the circular stapler), sigmoid lesions (that can not be reached by the circular stapler), and multifocal/multicentric lesions.

Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques

The laparoscopic surgical procedures to treat rectosigmoid DIE lesions can be divided into two concepts of surgery: conservative and radical. Conservative surgery may also be called nodulectomy and means the resection of the intestinal DIE implant. It can be achieved using the following techniques: Rectal shaving [16,26-28] Traditional technique Reverse technique Mucosal skinning [29] Full-thickness anterior rectal wall excision/disc resection [16,30] Scissors and suture Circular stapler Linear stapler All techniques have the aim of removing the rectosigmoid DIE nodule along with less (shaving) or more (disc resection) layers of the anterior rectal wall. The technical aspects of all procedures have already been described elsewhere in the literature [16,26,27,30]. Radical surgery may also be called segmental bowel resection and is defined by the resection of a bowel segment affected by the endometriosis followed by primary colorectal anastomosis [16,30,31]. A protective ileostomy may be performed depending on the distance between the intestinal DIE lesion and the anal verge [31,32].

Rationale
For segmental bowel resection: The best arguments in favor of the segmental bowel resection are: Multifocal pattern of distribution of the intestinal DIE lesions [811,18]; Ensure completeness of resection; Safe procedure in experienced centers [31,34,35]. Taken into account that intestinal DIE is frequently multicentric/ multifocal [8-11,18], many authors claim that the lesion should always/ most of the times be treated by means of a segmental bowel resection. Indeed, when Remorgida et al. [36] evaluated bowel specimens from 16 women receiving a full-thickness disc resection followed by a segmental bowel resection (during the same surgical procedure), residual intestinal DIE lesion was still present in 43.8% of the cases. For nodulectomy: However, there are important considerations to be taken into account in favor of nodulectomy: Nodulectomy performed in those cases in which the surgeon know that the segmental bowel resection will be carried on in the same procedure will probably not be the same as nodulectomy performed in other situations; Margins of resection are not always free from disease after segmental bowel resection. There is histologic evidence of positive margins after segmental bowel resection in up to 22% of the cases [15,37]; It is not known if the radicality of the resection has a direct correlation with clinical improvement of the patient symptoms. Recently, Mabrouk et al. [38] showed that the presence of satellite lesions or positive resection margins does not seem to influence clinical outcomes of segmental bowel resection; There are some surgical specimens after segmental bowel resection with no evidence of intestinal DIE. In the review conducted by Meuleman et al. [15], in 0.8% of the patients the bowel segment had no histologic evidence of transmural invasion by the disease; Some studies suggest that functional adverse effects (bowel and/ or bladder dysfunction) after segmental bowel resection are greater than after nodulectomy [39-42]; The risk of postoperative intestinal fistula after segmental bowel resection is greater than after nodulectomy [41,43-46].

How to Choose between Nodulectomy and Segmental Resection?

Indications
For nodulectomy: Shaving may be performed more or less agressively in the bowel wall. Classical shaving shoud be indicated for DIE lesions affecting the rectum up to the muscular layer. The aim of the procedure is to find a plane within the muscular layer of the rectum where there is no more evidence of endometriotic glands. The deeper the lesion the higher the risk of bowel opening during the procedure. When the lesion affects the submucosal layer, shaving with mucosal skinning is an option [29]. At this technique, only the mucosa is preserved intact and the defect in the bowel wall is closed with suture. As mucosal preservation is not easily achieved, frequently the anterior rectal wall is completely opened during the procedure. Full-thickness anterior rectal wall excision using scissors and suture is another option for rectosigmoid DIE lesions, especially for those infiltrating deeper than the muscular layer of the bowel. Alternatively, full-thickness anterior rectal wall excision (disc resection) may be performed using circular stapler. It is usually indicated for a single intestinal DIE lesion located at the anterior rectosigmoid wall, smaller than 30 mm in diameter, and affecting less than one-third of the intestinal circumference [16,30,33].
Gynecol Obstetric

Discussion
The most appropriate surgical approach for rectosigmoid DIE still remains controversial [15]. The choice between conservative and radical treatment depends on the characteristics of the lesion on preoperative imaging work-up, surgeons experience and school of thought [41]. More than 70% of women presenting with intestinal DIE still experience segmental bowel resection [15,47]. The argument
ISSN:2161-0932 Gynecology an open access journal

Endometriosis and Endoscopy Surgery

Citation: Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2013) Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection? Gynecol Obstetric S3: 001. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.S3-001 Page 3 of 5

supporting this approach is the belief in a reduced risk of recurrence after radical removal of occult endometriotic foci [31,41]. Alternatively, nodulectomy rather than segmental bowel resection may be performed for some types of intestinal DIE lesions with good results. Conservative surgery has been demonstrating lower morbidity and better digestive and urinary functional outcomes than radical surgery [40,41,45,46,48]. In addition, microscopic endometriotic lesions may still be found on the margins of segmental bowel resection [15,37,49] and rectosigmoid resection does not avoid postoperative recurrences of pain [49], especially in those women with the presence of uterine adenomyosis [50]. Also, the clinical implications of leaving residual disease (satellite lesions, positive resection margins or microscopic foci of endometriosis) in the digestive tract is unknown [38,45]. Mabrouk et al. [38] evaluated the histopathological patterns of colorectal endometriosis and investigated relationships between histological findings and clinical data observing that the persistence of residual disease did not influence clinical outcomes of segmental bowel resection.

in terms of functional digestive and urinary outcomes compared with segmental bowel resection [40,41,43,45].

Quality of Life and Recurrence

The improvement of pelvic pain after conservative and radical approaches for intestinal DIE are comparable [40,41,43,45]. In the review of Meuleman et al. [15], total recurrence rate seemed to be lower in the segmental bowel resection group than after conservative treatment (5.8% vs. 17.6%). Conversely, recently findings from Fanfani et al. [45] did not show any significant difference in the recurrence rate between women managed by either segmental bowel resection or nodulectomy in a median follow-up of 33 months. Also, the experienced group headed by Donnez and Squifflet reported a recurrence rate of 8% in a series of 500 women undergoing conservative treatment (shaving) [28].

Final Considerations
There is a global trend towards minimally invasive approaches in the management of patients with intestinal DIE. Both nodulectomy and segmental bowel resection may be options to treat the disease and there is a rationale supporting each technique. Regardless of which technique is employed, one should keep in mind that endometriosis is a benign disease and that the main objective of the treatment is to improve the patients quality of life. The rationales for both conservative and radical surgeries were discussed in our paper. Prospective studies are still necessary to define which technique is the gold standard to manage intestinal DIE.
References
1. Senapati S, Barnhart K (2011) Managing endometriosis-associated infertility. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54: 720-726. 2. Vigano P, Parazzini F, Somigliana E, Vercellini P (2004) Endometriosis: epidemiology and aetiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 18: 177-200. 3. Eskenazi B, Warner ML (1997) Epidemiology of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 24: 235-258. 4. Donnez J, Nisolle M, Grandjean P, Gillerot S, Clerckx F (1992) The place of GnRH agonists in the treatment of endometriosis and fibroids by advanced endoscopic techniques. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 7: 31-33. 5. Cornillie FJ, Oosterlynck D, Lauweryns JM, Koninckx PR (1990) Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril 53: 978-983. 6. Chapron C, Dubuisson JB, Fritel X, Fernandez B, Poncelet C, et al. (1999) Operative management of deep endometriosis infiltrating the uterosacral ligaments. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6: 31-37. 7. Koninckx PR, Martin DC (1992) Deep endometriosis: a consequence of infiltration or retraction or possibly adenomyosis externa? Fertil Steril 58: 924928. 8. Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2012) Deep infiltrating endometriosis: anatomical distribution and surgical treatment. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 34: 278-284. 9. Piketty M, Chopin N, Dousset B, Millischer-Bellaische AE, Roseau G, et al. (2009) Preoperative work-up for patients with deeply infiltrating endometriosis: transvaginal ultrasonography must definitely be the first-line imaging examination. Hum Reprod 24: 602-607. 10. Chapron C, Chopin N, Borghese B, Foulot H, Dousset B, et al. (2006) Deeply infiltrating endometriosis: pathogenetic implications of the anatomical distribution. Hum Reprod 21: 1839-1845. 11. Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Vieira M, Barakat H, Dousset B, et al. (2003) Anatomical distribution of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: surgical implications and proposition for a classification. Hum Reprod 18: 157-161. 12. Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia CH, Zomer MT (2012) Association between ovarian endometrioma and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 34: 420-424.

Complications
Both the conservative and the radical treatment of intestinal DIE may have the potential risk of complications. The two major complications of the surgical treatment of intestinal DIE are anastomotic leakage and rectovaginal fistula [15,26,31,41,44,46,51]. Anastomotic dehiscence and leakage seem to occur after segmental bowel resection in 3% to 7% of cases and up to 20% in low rectal anastomosis [52,53]. An independent predictor for postoperative anatomotic leaks after segmental bowel resection is the colorectal anastomosis less than 10 cm from the anal verge [32,54-56]. That is why temporary diverting ileostomy seems to be advisable in such cases [32,56]. In one systematic review including 2036 women undergoing segmental bowel resection for intestinal DIE, the rates of rectovaginal fistula and anastomotic leakage were 2.7% and 1.5%, respectively [15]. In the large series of Ruffo et al. [31], laparoscopic rectal resection for severe endometriosis of the mid and low rectum was conducted in 750 women and the rates of anastomotic leak and rectovaginal fistula were 3% and 2%, respectively. On the other hand, the rate of intestinal complications after shaving and disc excision is reported to be up to 1.6% [28,44] and 3% [17,46], respectively. Urologic complications (ureteral fistula or stenosis) may also be seen after colorectal resection for DIE due to the complex and extended dissection of deep pelvic spaces required in such procedures [41,44,57]. Ureteral fistula seems to occur in up to 3% of women undergoing surgery for intestinal DIE [44,57,58] due to ureteral damage from the heat transferred to the ureteral wall by the use of bipolar or monopolar energy during the dissection [59]. In addition, postoperative urinary and/or intestinal dysfunctions are supposed to occur after surgery for intestinal DIE. Segmental bowel resection requires more enlarged and deeper dissection of pararectal spaces than nodulectomy leading, in theory, to more frequent nerve injuries [41]. De novo digestive symptoms can develop, particularly after rectal ampulla resection, including constipation, difficult defecation, a sense of incomplete emptying, or diarrhea [60,61]. Transient neurogenic bladder leading to urinary retention, dysuria or, in severe cases, permanent areflexic bladder have also been reported, but the latter is a rare complication [43]. It may concern up to 16% of patients managed for rectal endometriosis [62] and is generally the result of injury of the hypogastric plexus that contains the pelvic parasympathetic fibers responsible for the voiding function of the bladder detrusor [63-65]. Nerve-sparing surgery has been advocated to decrease the incidence of such functional urinary side effects [66-68]. Nodulectomy seems to have similar or better results
Gynecol Obstetric

Endometriosis and Endoscopy Surgery

ISSN:2161-0932 Gynecology an open access journal

Citation: Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2013) Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection? Gynecol Obstetric S3: 001. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.S3-001 Page 4 of 5
13. Vercellini P, Crosignani PG, Somigliana E, Berlanda N, Barbara G, et al. (2009) Medical treatment for rectovaginal endometriosis: what is the evidence? Hum Reprod 24: 2504-2514. 14. Haggag H, Solomayer E, Juhasz-Bss I (2011) The treatment of rectal endometriosis and the role of laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 23: 278-282. 15. Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, DHoore A, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Penninckx F, et al. (2011) Surgical treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement. Hum Reprod Update 17: 311-326. 16. Kondo W, Zomer MT, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Oliveira MAP, et al. (2012) Surgical treatment of intestinal deep infiltrating endometriosis by laparoscopy - technical aspects. Bras J Video-Surg. 17. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP (2011) Laparoscopic management of bowel endometriosis: predictors of severe disease and recurrence. JSLS 15: 431-438. 18. Kavallaris A, Kohler C, Kuhne-Heid R, Schneider A (2003) Histopathological extent of rectal invasion by rectovaginal endometriosis. Hum Reprod 18: 13231327. 19. Kondo W, Zomer MT, Pinto EP, Ribeiro R, Ribeiro MFC, et al. (2011) Deep infiltrating endometriosis: imaging features and laparoscopic correlation. Journal of Endometriosis 3: 197-212. 20. Goncalves MO, Podgaec S, Dias JA Jr, Gonzalez M, Abrao MS (2010) Transvaginal ultrasonography with bowel preparation is able to predict the number of lesions and rectosigmoid layers affected in cases of deep endometriosis, defining surgical strategy. Hum Reprod 25: 665-671. 21. Chamie LP, Pereira RM, Zanatta A, Serafini PC (2010) Transvaginal US after bowel preparation for deeply infiltrating endometriosis: protocol, imaging appearances, and laparoscopic correlation. Radiographics 30: 1235-1249. 22. Chassang M, Novellas S, Bloch-Marcotte C, Delotte J, Toullalan O, et al. (2010) Utility of vaginal and rectal contrast medium in MRI for the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 20: 1003-1010. 23. Abrao MS, Gonalves MO, Dias JA Jr, Podgaec S, Chamie LP, et al. (2007) Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22: 3092-3097. 24. Takeuchi H, Kuwatsuru R, Kitade M, Sakurai A, Kikuchi I, et al. (2005) A novel technique using magnetic resonance imaging jelly for evaluation of rectovaginal endometriosis. Fertil Steril 83: 442-447. 25. Kondo W, Branco AW, Trippia CH, Ribeiro R, Zomer MT (2012) Retrocervical deep infiltrating endometriotic lesions larger than 30mm are associated with an increased rate of ureteral involvement. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 26. Kondo W, Bourdel N, Jardon K, Tamburro S, Cavoli D, et al. (2011) Comparison between standard and reverse laparoscopic techniques for rectovaginal endometriosis. Surg Endosc 25: 2711-2717. 27. Kondo W, Bourdel N, Zomer MT, Slim K, Botchorischvili R, et al. (2013) Surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis: Technique and rationale. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 5: 316-332. 28. Donnez J, Squifflet J (2010) Complications, pregnancy and recurrence in a prospective series of 500 patients operated on by the shaving technique for deep rectovaginal endometriotic nodules. Hum Reprod 25: 1949-1958. 29. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A, Donnez J (2012) Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril 98: 564-571. 30. Crispi CP, Schor E, Oliveira MAP, Abrao M, Ribeiro PAAG (2012) Treaty of gynecological endoscopy: cirurgia minimally invasive. (3rdedn), Revinter, Rio de Janeiro. 31. Ruffo G, Sartori A, Crippa S, Partelli S, Barugola G, et al. (2012) Laparoscopic rectal resection for severe endometriosis of the mid and low rectum: technique and operative results. Surg Endosc 26: 1035-1040. 32. Choi DH, Hwang JK, Ko YT, Jang HJ, Shin HK, et al. (2010) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 26: 265-273. 33. Woods RJ, Heriot AG, Chen FC (2003) Anterior rectal wall excision for endometriosis using the circular stapler. ANZ J Surg 73: 647-648. 34. Bassi MA, Podgaec S, Dias JA Jr, DAmico Filho N, Petta CA, et al. (2011) Quality of life after segmental resection of the rectosigmoid by laparoscopy in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel involvement. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18: 730-733. 35. Ribeiro PA, Rodrigues FC, Kehdi IP, Rossini L, Abdalla HS, et al. (2006) Laparoscopic resection of intestinal endometriosis: a 5-year experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13: 442-446. 36. Remorgida V, Ragni N, Ferrero S, Anserini P, Torelli P, et al. (2005) How complete is full thickness disc resection of bowel endometriotic lesions? A prospective surgical and histological study. Hum Reprod 20: 2317-2320. 37. Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, DHoore A, Buyens A, Van Cleynenbreugel B, et al. (2011) Clinical outcome after CO2 laser laparoscopic radical excision of endometriosis with colorectal wall invasion combined with laparoscopic segmental bowel resection and reanastomosis. Hum Reprod 26: 2336-2343. 38. Mabrouk M, Spagnolo E, Raimondo D, DErrico A, Caprara G, et al. (2012) Segmental bowel resection for colorectal endometriosis: is there a correlation between histological pattern and clinical outcomes? Hum Reprod 27: 13141319. 39. Armengol-Debeir L, Savoye G, Leroi AM, Gourcerol G, Savoye-Collet C, et al. (2011) Pathophysiological approach to bowel dysfunction after segmental colorectal resection for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 26: 2330-2335. 40. Roman H, Loisel C, Resch B, Tuech JJ, Hochain P, et al. (2010) Delayed functional outcomes associated with surgical management of deep rectovaginal endometriosis with rectal involvement: giving patients an informed choice. Hum Reprod 25: 890-899. 41. Roman H, Rozsnayi F, Puscasiu L, Resch B, Belhiba H, et al. (2010) Complications associated with two laparoscopic procedures used in the management of rectal endometriosis. JSLS 14: 169-177. 42. Benbara A, Fortin A, Martin B, Palazzo L, Le Tohic A, et al. (2008) Surgical and functional results of rectosigmoidal resection for severe endometriosis. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 36: 1191-1201. 43. Moawad NS, Guido R, Ramanathan R, Mansuria S, Lee T (2011) Comparison of laparoscopic anterior discoid resection and laparoscopic low anterior resection of deep infiltrating rectosigmoid endometriosis. JSLS 15: 331-338. 44. Kondo W, Bourdel N, Tamburro S, Cavoli D, Jardon K, et al. (2011) Complications after surgery for deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis. BJOG 118: 292-298. 45. Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Gagliardi ML, Ruffo G, Ceccaroni M, et al. (2010) Discoid or segmental rectosigmoid resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis: a casecontrol study. Fertil Steril 94: 444-449. 46. Mohr C, Nezhat FR, Nezhat CH, Seidman DS, Nezhat CR (2005) Fertility considerations in laparoscopic treatment of infiltrative bowel endometriosis. JSLS 9: 16-24. 47. De Cicco C, Corona R, Schonman R, Mailova K, Ussia A, et al. (2011) Bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a systematic review. BJOG 118: 285-291. 48. Ret Dvalos ML, De Cicco C, DHoore A, De Decker B, Koninckx PR (2007) Outcome after rectum or sigmoid resection: a review for gynecologists. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14: 33-38. 49. Vercellini P, Crosignani PG, Abbiati A, Somigliana E, Vigan P, et al. (2009) The effect of surgery for symptomatic endometriosis: the other side of the story. Hum Reprod Update 15: 177-188. 50. Ferrero S, Camerini G, Menada MV, Biscaldi E, Ragni N, et al. (2009) Uterine adenomyosis in persistence of dysmenorrhea after surgical excision of pelvic endometriosis and colorectal resection. J Reprod Med 54: 366-372. 51. Kssi J, Setl M, Enholm B, Luostarinen M (2010) The early outcome of laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal resection for endometriosis. Colorectal Dis 12: 232-235. 52. Fingerhut A, Elhadad A, Hay JM, Lacaine F, Flamant Y (1994) Infraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: hand-sewn versus circular staples. A controlled clinical trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Surgery 116: 484-490. 53. Fingerhut A, Hay JM, Elhadad A, Lacaine F, Flamant Y (1995) Supraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: hand-sewn versus circular staples--a controlled clinical trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Surgery 118: 479-485. 54. Trencheva K, Morrissey KP, Wells M, Mancuso CA, Lee SW, et al. (2013) Identifying Important Predictors for Anastomotic Leak After Colon and Rectal Resection: Prospective Study on 616 Patients. Ann Surg 257: 108-113. 55. Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, et al. (2011) Incidence of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis for rectal cancer. Am J Surg 202: 259-264.

Gynecol Obstetric

Endometriosis and Endoscopy Surgery

ISSN:2161-0932 Gynecology an open access journal

Citation: Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2013) Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection? Gynecol Obstetric S3: 001. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.S3-001 Page 5 of 5
56. Kim JS, Cho SY, Min BS, Kim NK (2009) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg 209: 694-701. 57. Zilberman S, Ballester M, Touboul C, Chreau E, Sbe P, et al. (2013) Partial Colpectomy is a Risk Factor for Urologic Complications of Colorectal Resection for Endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20: 49-55. 58. Mereu L, Ruffo G, Landi S, Barbieri F, Zaccoletti R, et al. (2007) Laparoscopic treatment of deep endometriosis with segmental colorectal resection: shortterm morbidity. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14: 463-469. 59. Ostrzenski A, Radolinski B, Ostrzenska KM (2003) A review of laparoscopic ureteral injury in pelvic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 58: 794-799. 60. Zanolla R, Torelli T, Campo B, Ordesi G (1988) Micturitional dysfunction after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Rehabilitative treatment. Dis Colon Rectum 31: 707-709. 61. Dehni N, Tiret E, Singland JD, Cunningham C, Schlegel RD, et al. (1998) Long-term functional outcome after low anterior resection: comparison of low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 41: 817-822. 62. Darai E, Thomassin I, Barranger E, Detchev R, Cortez A, et al. (2005) Feasibility and clinical outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection for endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192: 394-400. 63. Slack A, Child T, Lindsey I, Kennedy S, Cunningham C, et al. (2007) Urological and colorectal complications following surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis. BJOG 114: 1278-1282. 64. Dubernard G, Rouzier R, David-Montefiore E, Bazot M, Dara E (2008) Urinary complications after surgery for posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis are related to the extent of dissection and to uterosacral ligaments resection. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15: 235-240. 65. Landi S, Ceccaroni M, Perutelli A, Allodi C, Barbieri F, et al. (2006) Laparoscopic nerve-sparing complete excision of deep endometriosis: is it feasible? Hum Reprod 21: 774-781. 66. Possover M, Quakernack J, Chiantera V (2005) The LANN technique to reduce postoperative functional morbidity in laparoscopic radical pelvic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 201: 913-917. 67. Ceccaroni M, Clarizia R, Bruni F, DUrso E, Gagliardi ML, et al. (2012) Nervesparing laparoscopic eradication of deep endometriosis with segmental rectal and parametrial resection: the Negrar method. A single-center, prospective, clinical trial. Surg Endosc 26: 2029-2045. 68. Kavallaris A, Mebes I, Evagyelinos D, Dafopoulos A, Beyer DA (2011) Followup of dysfunctional bladder and rectum after surgery of a deep infiltrating rectovaginal endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283: 1021-1026.

Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of OMICS Group submissions
Unique features: User friendly/feasible website-translation of your paper to 50 worlds leading languages Audio Version of published paper Digital articles to share and explore

Citation: Kondo W, Ribeiro R, Trippia C, Zomer MT (2013) Laparoscopic Treatment of Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Affecting the Rectosigmoid Colon: Nodulectomy or Segmental Resection? Gynecol Obstetric S3: 001. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.S3-001

Special features: 250 Open Access Journals 20,000 editorial team 21 days rapid review process Quality and quick editorial, review and publication processing Indexing at PubMed (partial), Scopus, DOAJ, EBSCO, Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientific Credits Better discount for your subsequent articles

This article was originally published in a special issue, Endometriosis and Endoscopy Surgery handled by Editor(s). Dr. Francisco Carmona, University of Barcelona, Europe

Submit your manuscript at: http://www.omicsonline.org/submission/

Gynecol Obstetric

Endometriosis and Endoscopy Surgery

ISSN:2161-0932 Gynecology an open access journal