-
The British Journal of Surgery Nov 2022Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim...
BACKGROUND
Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised.
CONCLUSION
These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.
Topics: Humans; Abdominal Wall; Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Incisional Hernia; Laparotomy; Suture Techniques; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 36026550
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac302 -
Hernia : the Journal of Hernias and... Dec 2021To systematically review technical aspects and treatment regimens of botulinum toxin A (BTA) injections in the lateral abdominal wall musculature. We also investigated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review technical aspects and treatment regimens of botulinum toxin A (BTA) injections in the lateral abdominal wall musculature. We also investigated the effect of BTA on abdominal muscle- and hernia dimensions, and clinical outcome.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched for studies that investigate the injection of BTA in the lateral abdominal wall muscles. Study characteristics, BTA treatment regimens, surgical procedures, and clinical outcomes are presented descriptively. The effect of BTA on muscle- and hernia dimensions is analyzed using random-effects meta-analyses, and exclusively for studies that investigate ventral incisional hernia patients.
RESULTS
We identified 23 studies, comprising 995 patients. Generally, either 500 units of Dysport or 200-300 units of Botox are injected at 3-5 locations bilaterally in all three muscles of the lateral abdominal wall, about 4 weeks prior to surgery. No major procedural complications are reported. Meta-analyses show that BTA provides significant elongation of the lateral abdominal wall of 3.2 cm per side (95% CI 2.0-4.3, I = 0%, p < 0.001); 6.3 cm total elongation, and a significant but heterogeneous decrease in transverse hernia width (95% CI 0.2-6.8, I = 94%, p = 0.04). Furthermore, meta-analysis shows that BTA pretreatment in ventral hernia patients significantly increases the fascial closure rate [RR 1.08 (95% CI 1.02-1.16, I = 0%, p = 0.02)].
CONCLUSION
The injection technique and treatment regimens of botulinum toxin A as well as patient selection require standardization. Bilateral pretreatment in hernia patients significantly elongates the lateral abdominal wall muscles, making fascial closure during surgical hernia repair more likely.
STUDY REGISTRATION
A review protocol for this meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020198246).
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Abdominal Wall; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Hernia, Ventral; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Neuromuscular Agents; Preoperative Care; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 34546475
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-021-02499-1 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2022Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) is an abnormal communication between the gastrointestinal tract and skin, with a myriad of etiologies and therapeutic options. Management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) is an abnormal communication between the gastrointestinal tract and skin, with a myriad of etiologies and therapeutic options. Management is influenced by etiology and specifics of the ECF, and patient-related factors. The aim of this study was to assess overall success, recurrence, and mortality rates of treatment for ECF.
MATERIALS
A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed through October 2021 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Case reports, reviews, animal studies, studies not reporting outcomes, had no available English text, included patients < 16 years old or those assessing other abdominocutaneous/internal fistulas were excluded.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies, between 1975 and 2020, incorporating 3078 patients were included. Patient age ranged between 16 and 87 years with a male:female ratio of 1.14:1. ECF developed postoperatively in 89.4%. Other common etiologies were inflammatory bowel disease, trauma, malignancy, and radiation. At least 28% of patients had complex fistulae (reported in 18 studies). Most common fistula site was small bowel. In 34 publications, 62.4% (n = 1371) patients received parenteral nutrition. In 45 publications, 72.5% underwent surgery to treat the fistula. Meta-analysis revealed an 89% healing rate; recurrence rate after initial successful treatment was 11.1%, and mortality rate was 8.5%. In a subgroup of patients who underwent combined ECF takedown and abdominal wall reconstructions (n = 315), 78% achieved fascial closure, mesh was used in 72%, hernia, and fistula recurrence rates were 19.7% and 7.6%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of ECF must be individualized according to specific etiology and location of the fistula and the patient's associated conditions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Intestinal Fistula; Male; Parenteral Nutrition; Retrospective Studies; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35915291
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-022-02656-3 -
Hernia : the Journal of Hernias and... Oct 2015There is no consensus as to the treatment strategy for abdominal wall hernias in fertile women. This study was undertaken to review the current literature on treatment... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
There is no consensus as to the treatment strategy for abdominal wall hernias in fertile women. This study was undertaken to review the current literature on treatment of abdominal wall hernias in fertile women before or during pregnancy.
METHODS
A literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase in combination with a cross-reference search of eligible papers.
RESULTS
We included 31 papers of which 23 were case reports. In fertile women undergoing sutured or mesh repair, pain was described in a few patients during the last trimester of a subsequent pregnancy. Emergency surgery of incarcerated hernias in pregnant women, as well as combined hernia repair and cesarean section appears as safe procedures. No major complications were reported following hernia repair before or during pregnancy. The combined procedure of elective cesarean section and abdominal wall hernia repair was reported in 102 patients without major complications.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature on abdominal wall hernia and pregnancy is sparse. Abdominal wall hernia repair with suture or mesh may cause pain in the last trimester of a subsequent pregnancy. Hernia repair in conjunction with cesarean section appear as the optimal treatment of a pregnant patient with a symptomatic abdominal wall hernia.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Adult; Cesarean Section; Female; Hernia, Ventral; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 25862027
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-015-1373-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.
Topics: Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26264829
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Sep 2021Anorectal emergencies comprise a wide variety of diseases that share common symptoms, i.e., anorectal pain or bleeding and might require immediate management. While most... (Review)
Review
Anorectal emergencies comprise a wide variety of diseases that share common symptoms, i.e., anorectal pain or bleeding and might require immediate management. While most of the underlying conditions do not need inpatient management, some of them could be life-threatening and need prompt recognition and treatment. It is well known that an incorrect diagnosis is frequent for anorectal diseases and that a delayed diagnosis is related to an impaired outcome. This paper aims to improve the knowledge and the awareness on this specific topic and to provide a useful tool for every physician dealing with anorectal emergencies.The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the boards of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the WSES-AAST-WJES Consensus Conference on Anorectal Emergencies, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES-AAST panel of experts was reached. We structured our work into seven main topics to cover the entire management of patients with anorectal emergencies and to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.
Topics: Emergencies; Humans; Rectal Diseases; United States
PubMed: 34530908
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-021-00384-x -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of the literature on patients with extrapelvic deep endometriosis.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the literature on patients with extrapelvic deep endometriosis.
DATA SOURCES
A thorough search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Studies in the last 20 years that reported on primary extrapelvic endometriosis were included (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019125370).
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
The initial search identified 5465 articles, and 179 articles, mostly case reports and series, were included. A total of 230 parietal (PE), 43 visceral (VE), 628 thoracic (TE), 6 central nerve system, 12 extrapelvic muscle or nerve, and 1 nasal endometriosis articles were identified. Abdominal endometriosis was divided into PE and VE. PE lesions involved primary lesions of the abdominal wall, groin, and perineum. When present, symptoms included a palpable mass (99%), cyclic pain (71%) and cyclic bleeding (48%). Preoperative clinical suspicion was low, the use of tissue diagnosis was indeterminate (25%), and a few (8%) malignancies were suspected. Surgical treatment for PE included wide local excision (97%), with 5% recurrence and no complications. Patients with VE involving abdominal organs - kidneys, liver, pancreas, and biliary tract - were treated surgically (86%) with both conservative (51%) and radical resection (49%), with 15% recurrence and 2 major complications reported. In patients with TE involving the diaphragm, pleura, and lung, isolated and concomitant lesions occurred and favored the right side (80%). Patients with TE presented with the triad of catamenial pain, pneumothorax, and hemoptysis. Thoracoscopy with resection followed by pleurodesis was the most common procedure performed, with 29% recurrence. Adjuvant medical therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone was administered in 15% of cases. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was performed in all cases of nonthoracic and nonabdominal endometriosis. Common symptoms were paresthesia and cyclic pain with radiation. Surgical resection was reported in 84%, with improvement of symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Extrapelvic endometriosis, traditionally thought to be rare, has been reported in a considerable number of cases. Heightened awareness and clinical suspicion of the disease and a multidisciplinary approach are recommended to achieve a prompt diagnosis and optimize patient outcomes. Currently, there are no comparative studies to provide recommendations regarding optimal diagnostic methods, treatment options, and outcomes for endometriosis involving extrapelvic sites.
Topics: Adult; Diaphragm; Endometriosis; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Muscular Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Pneumothorax; Recurrence; Thoracic Diseases; Thoracoscopy
PubMed: 31618674
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.10.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Blood Vessels; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intestines; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Male; Peritoneal Cavity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Bladder
PubMed: 30657163
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub5 -
VASA. Zeitschrift Fur Gefasskrankheiten Jul 2021Abdominal wall hernias (AWHs) share common epidemiological characteristics with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), typically presenting in male population and older... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Abdominal wall hernias (AWHs) share common epidemiological characteristics with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), typically presenting in male population and older ages. Prior reports have associated those two disease entities. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis and examine whether AAA rates are higher among patients with AWH vs controls and whether the incidence of AWH was higher among patients with AAA vs patients without AAA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. The Medline database was searched up to July 31, 2020. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. In total, 17 articles and 738,972 participants were included in the systematic review, while 107,578 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. Among four studies investigating the incidence of AAA in patients with hernias, AAA was more common in patients with hernias, compared to patients without hernias. [OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.24-5.16, I=81.6%]. Among thirteen studies that compared patients with known AAA vs no AAA, the incidence of hernias was higher in patients with AAA, compared with patients without AAA [OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.66-3.09, I=84.6%]. Our study findings indicate that a strong association between AWH and AAA exists. AWHs could therefore be used as an additional selection criterion for screening patients for AAA, apart from age, gender, family history and smoking.
Topics: Aged; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Hernia, Abdominal; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33739140
DOI: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000947 -
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey Feb 2017Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) is a rare but easily treated cause of pain in women, especially those who have undergone cesarean deliveries. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) is a rare but easily treated cause of pain in women, especially those who have undergone cesarean deliveries.
OBJECTIVE
This article reviews the diagnosis and management of AWE, a condition that generally develops after surgery but may arise spontaneously. We present a systematic review of the existing literature on AWE, as well as our clinical recommendations for medical and surgical management.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched PubMed and other databases using the search criteria "abdominal wall endometriosis," "abdominal wall endometriomas," and "abdominal wall mass." The references of those articles were then reviewed, and additional publications were evaluated.
RESULTS
Many case reports and case series have been published describing AWE. The overall quality of evidence is poor due to the lack of prospective studies and heterogeneous descriptions of AWE lesions and treatment options. Based on the available literature, it appears that AWE may arise spontaneously but is generally associated with prior pelvic surgery. Abdominal wall endometriosis can be diagnosed with a careful history and physical examination. Imaging including ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging can assist with localization of the lesions, and aid in surgical excision and management. Lesions that have been removed in their entirety are unlikely to reoccur.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Although limited, the body of literature describing management of AWE suggests that it can be successfully treated in most patients with careful surgical planning.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Disease Management; Dissection; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Medical History Taking; Physical Examination
PubMed: 28218772
DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000399