No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective The aim of the present study was to perform a comprehensive review of the literature to provide a complete and clear picture of isthmocele-a hypoechoic area within the myometrium at the site of the uterine scar of a previous cesarean section-by exploring in depth every aspect of this condition. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to identify the most relevant studies about this topic. Results Every aspect of isthmocele has been studied and described: pathophysiology, clinical symptoms, classification, and diagnosis. Its treatment, both medical and surgical, has also been reported according to the actual literature data. Conclusion Cesarean section is the most common surgical procedure performed worldwide, and one of the consequences of this technique is isthmocele. A single and systematic classification of isthmocele is needed to improve its diagnosis and management. Further studies should be performed to better understand its pathogenesis. Palavras-chave ResumoObjetivo O objetivo do presente estudo foi realizar uma revisão abrangente da literatura a fim de fornecer um quadro completo e claro da istmocele-uma área hipoecoica dentro do miométrio no local da cicatriz uterina de uma cesariana anterioraprofundando todos os aspectos desta condição Métodos Uma revisão abrangente da literatura foi realizada para identificar os estudos mais relevantes sobre este tema. Resultados Todos os aspectos da istmocele foram estudados e descritos: fisiopatologia, sintomas clínicos, classificação e diagnóstico. Os tratamentos médico e cirúrgico também foram relatados de acordo com os dados reais da literatura. Conclusão A cesárea é o procedimento cirúrgico mais comum realizado em todo o mundo, e uma das consequências desta técnica é a istmocele. Uma classificação única e sistemática da istmocele é necessária para melhorar seu diagnóstico e manejo. Novos estudos devem ser realizados para melhor entender sua patogênese.ORCID ID is https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9485-0126.

Objectives: A meta-analysis, with a head-to-head approach, was carried out to compare the three most common techniques for a deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE) diagnosis. We focused on: transvaginal-sonography (TVS), magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), and rectal-endoscopy-sonography (RES). Methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until December 2018. All prospective and well-defined retrospective studies carried out in tertiary referral centers were considered. This review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy Tests (SEDATE) guidelines. We considered only papers in which at least two imaging modalities were compared in the same set of patients (head-to-head approach). Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) was performed separately for each location of interest. Bivariate or univariate approach has been applied when appropriate. We analyze the DTA of TVS vs. MRI, TVS vs. RES, and MRI vs. RES. Results: Our meta-analysis (17 studies included) showed high-to-moderate DTA of TVS for all endometriosis locations (apart from recto-vaginal septum (RVS)) that were not statistically different from MRI and RES for those localized in the posterior compartment. RES results were more accurate than MRI for RS lesions but less accurate than TVS for other pelvic locations, except for RVS. Conclusions: All approaches provide good accuracy with specific strong points. Ultrasonography demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy not inferior to MRI and RES; therefore, it must be considered the primary approach for DPE diagnosis. MRI has to be considered as a valuable approach in settings where highly skilled sonographers are not available. Keypoints: (1) We confirmed the non-inferiority of TVS compared to MRI and RES for the diagnosis of specific pelvic anatomic location of endometriosis lesions. (2) Ultrasonography could be considered the primary approach for DPE diagnosis (less invasive than RES and less expensive than MRI). (3) MRI has to be considered as a valuable approach in settings where skilled sonographers are not available.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract