MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416738411 · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s564184

Urogynecological Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Surgery for Deep Endometriosis: A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4416738411 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giuseppe Mascellino, Antonio Simone Laganà, Marco Anatrà, Pietro Serra, Giada Mesiano, Matteo Terrinoni, Vincenzo Mascellino, Simone Ferrero, Maurizio Serati, Maurizio Leone, Fabio Barra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Women s Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrinary systemLower urinary tract symptomsInvasive surgeryUrinary incontinenceVisual analogue scaleOveractive bladderInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreRobotic surgeryCochrane LibraryUterosacral ligament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep endometriosis (DE) frequently affects pelvic organs and may impair urinary function through both direct involvement and surgical nerve disruption. Minimally invasive excision is the standard treatment for symptomatic DE, but its impact on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines to evaluate postoperative urogynecological outcomes following laparoscopic or robotic surgery for DE (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251113885). PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published over the last 25 years. Eligible studies included women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for DE with postoperative urinary outcomes assessed by validated questionnaires or urodynamic testing. Methodological quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Out of 175 records, 9 studies involving 20-289 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported significant postoperative improvements, particularly in urgency, frequency, and dysuria, with benefits most evident in women presenting with moderate-to-severe preoperative LUTS. Improvements were observed in both subjective assessments, by using standardized questionnaires such as the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ), Urinary Symptom Profile (USP), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and, in some cases, objective measures such as bladder capacity and uroflowmetry. Conversely, three studies documented no significant change or worsening of urinary function, predominantly in women with minimal baseline dysfunction or extensive parametrial and sacral nerve involvement. In these series, postoperative deterioration included increased voiding difficulties and worsening symptom scores. Across studies, outcome definitions, assessment tools, surgical techniques, and follow-up intervals varied substantially, introducing significant heterogeneity that prevented a formal meta-analysis from being performed. Overall, minimally invasive surgery for DE may yield meaningful symptomatic relief in selected patients, particularly when nerve-sparing techniques are applied. However, functional deterioration remains a relevant risk, especially among those with minimal baseline LUTS. Future research should prioritize prospective trials with standardized outcome measures, longer follow-up, and stratification by preoperative symptom burden to optimize patient selection and refine surgical approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Women s HealthSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207