慢性盆腔痛的阑尾切除术 - 阑尾子宫内膜异位症的真实发病率:系统回顾与元分析

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.09.071
JR Kohn , M McHale
{"title":"慢性盆腔痛的阑尾切除术 - 阑尾子宫内膜异位症的真实发病率:系统回顾与元分析","authors":"JR Kohn ,&nbsp;M McHale","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.09.071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>Through systematic review and meta-analysis, to determine the prevalence of histologically-proven endometriosis of the appendix in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery for chronic pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>N/A.</div></div><div><h3>Patients or Participants</h3><div>Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to April 2024, including cross-sectional or cohort studies and excluding case reports or case series. Studies must report the proportion of histologically-proven appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) among all appendectomies performed during gynecologic surgery for pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Comparison of findings between incidental appendectomy (removal of appendix without evidence of appendicitis or appendiceal pathology) vs visible appendectomy (removal of abnormal appearing appendix with suspected pathology). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled prevalence.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Main Results</h3><div>29 studies were identified with 6,111 appendectomies performed during gynecologic surgery for pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis. Results appear in Figure 1. The pooled prevalence of histologically-proven endometriosis in the appendix (AppE) differed significantly between incidental appendectomy and appendectomy for an appendix with suspected pathology. Incidental appendectomy resulted in histologically-proven endometriosis in 8% of patients (95% confidence interval 6-11%). When only the abnormal appearing appendix was removed, the pooled prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis was 66% (95% confidence interval 34-88%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Among those with “visible abnormalities”, the rate of histologically-proven endometriosis of the appendix was quite variable between studies – reinforcing the inconsistency between visual and histologic diagnosis of endometriosis. When appendectomy is performed routinely at the time of surgery for chronic pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis, the pooled prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis is 8%; as such, routine appendectomy should be considered for inclusion as a standard component of endometriosis excision surgery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":"31 11","pages":"Page S2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appendectomy in Chronic Pelvic Pain - The True Prevalence of Appendiceal Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"JR Kohn ,&nbsp;M McHale\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.09.071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>Through systematic review and meta-analysis, to determine the prevalence of histologically-proven endometriosis of the appendix in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery for chronic pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>N/A.</div></div><div><h3>Patients or Participants</h3><div>Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to April 2024, including cross-sectional or cohort studies and excluding case reports or case series. Studies must report the proportion of histologically-proven appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) among all appendectomies performed during gynecologic surgery for pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Comparison of findings between incidental appendectomy (removal of appendix without evidence of appendicitis or appendiceal pathology) vs visible appendectomy (removal of abnormal appearing appendix with suspected pathology). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled prevalence.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Main Results</h3><div>29 studies were identified with 6,111 appendectomies performed during gynecologic surgery for pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis. Results appear in Figure 1. The pooled prevalence of histologically-proven endometriosis in the appendix (AppE) differed significantly between incidental appendectomy and appendectomy for an appendix with suspected pathology. Incidental appendectomy resulted in histologically-proven endometriosis in 8% of patients (95% confidence interval 6-11%). When only the abnormal appearing appendix was removed, the pooled prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis was 66% (95% confidence interval 34-88%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Among those with “visible abnormalities”, the rate of histologically-proven endometriosis of the appendix was quite variable between studies – reinforcing the inconsistency between visual and histologic diagnosis of endometriosis. When appendectomy is performed routinely at the time of surgery for chronic pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis, the pooled prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis is 8%; as such, routine appendectomy should be considered for inclusion as a standard component of endometriosis excision surgery.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"volume\":\"31 11\",\"pages\":\"Page S2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465024004795\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465024004795","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的通过系统综述和荟萃分析,确定因慢性盆腔疼痛或疑似子宫内膜异位症而接受妇科手术的患者中经组织学证实的阑尾子宫内膜异位症的患病率.设计系统综述和荟萃分析.设置N/A.患者或参与者系统综述从开始到2024年4月的MEDLINE、EMBASE和Scopus,包括横断面或队列研究,不包括病例报告或病例系列。干预措施比较偶然阑尾切除术(切除无阑尾炎或阑尾病理证据的阑尾)与可见阑尾切除术(切除疑似病理的异常阑尾)的结果。进行随机效应荟萃分析以确定汇总的患病率。结果见图 1。经组织学证实的阑尾子宫内膜异位症(AppE)的汇总患病率在偶然阑尾切除术和因阑尾疑似病变而进行的阑尾切除术之间存在显著差异。意外阑尾切除术导致组织学证实子宫内膜异位症的患者占 8%(95% 置信区间为 6-11%)。结论在有 "可见异常 "的患者中,经组织学证实的阑尾子宫内膜异位症的发生率在不同的研究中存在很大差异--这加强了子宫内膜异位症的肉眼诊断和组织学诊断之间的不一致性。如果在慢性盆腔疼痛或疑似子宫内膜异位症的手术中常规进行阑尾切除术,阑尾子宫内膜异位症的总发病率为 8%;因此,应考虑将常规阑尾切除术作为子宫内膜异位症切除手术的标准组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Appendectomy in Chronic Pelvic Pain - The True Prevalence of Appendiceal Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study Objective

Through systematic review and meta-analysis, to determine the prevalence of histologically-proven endometriosis of the appendix in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery for chronic pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting

N/A.

Patients or Participants

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to April 2024, including cross-sectional or cohort studies and excluding case reports or case series. Studies must report the proportion of histologically-proven appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) among all appendectomies performed during gynecologic surgery for pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis.

Interventions

Comparison of findings between incidental appendectomy (removal of appendix without evidence of appendicitis or appendiceal pathology) vs visible appendectomy (removal of abnormal appearing appendix with suspected pathology). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled prevalence.

Measurements and Main Results

29 studies were identified with 6,111 appendectomies performed during gynecologic surgery for pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis. Results appear in Figure 1. The pooled prevalence of histologically-proven endometriosis in the appendix (AppE) differed significantly between incidental appendectomy and appendectomy for an appendix with suspected pathology. Incidental appendectomy resulted in histologically-proven endometriosis in 8% of patients (95% confidence interval 6-11%). When only the abnormal appearing appendix was removed, the pooled prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis was 66% (95% confidence interval 34-88%).

Conclusion

Among those with “visible abnormalities”, the rate of histologically-proven endometriosis of the appendix was quite variable between studies – reinforcing the inconsistency between visual and histologic diagnosis of endometriosis. When appendectomy is performed routinely at the time of surgery for chronic pelvic pain or suspected endometriosis, the pooled prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis is 8%; as such, routine appendectomy should be considered for inclusion as a standard component of endometriosis excision surgery.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Is vaginal repair a good option for severe cesarean scar defect? Comparison of women with or without residual myometrium. Pelvic splenosis Mimicking Pelvic Tumor. Uterine Artery Embolization before Myomectomy: Is it worth the trouble? Vaginal Bulge is Not Always Prolapse. Use of Uterine Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Uterine Fibroids: A Comparative Review of Major National Guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1