Submitted:
28 June 2024
Posted:
28 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Population
2.2. Ultrasound Examination
2.3. The Pelvic MRI Scan
2.4. Other Imaging Techniques
2.5. Surgery
2.6. Study Design
-
Preoperative assessment (#ENZIANi = imaging, TVS+MRI):
- ○
- This assessment combined the findings from ultrasonography performed by the first surgeon qualifying and performing the surgery at each of these patients (E.M.-N.), using both vaginal and transabdominal probes, with the changes described in MRI reports by a radiology expert, using a 3T machine.
-
Postoperative assessment (#ENZIANs = surgery):
- ○
- This assessment evaluated the changes observed during surgery.
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Population
3.2. Concordance
3.3. Diagnostic Test Evaluation
4. Discussion
4.1. The B Compartment
4.2. Rectum (C)
4.3. Location in Abdominal Wall (F w)
4.4. Ureters’ Assessment (Fu)
5. Limitations
- Regarding the fact, that the group of patients was not random and selected in majority to only complex cases due to the number of them which needed advanced surgery and were admitted to the specialized oncological gynecology ward, which may correspond with a tertiary endometriosis centre, due to its admission criteria, the main limitations of this study might be the following: it is not representative for all endometriosis cases so do not show the full application of the #ENZIAN. The system of three level endometriosis care is under construction in Poland and our Center is nowadays one of the few, that can undertake such level of surgery.
- The learning curve.
- Both TVS and MRI must be considered as improving in efficacy with time, as both expert surgeon performing the TVSs and the expert radiologist specialized in DE protocol assessment were gaining experience with time, what is obviously an advantage, but might have biased the results.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shafrir, A.L.; Farland, L.V.; Shah, D.K.; et al. Risk for and consequences of endometriosis: A critical epidemiologic review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018, 51, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swift, B.; Taneri, B.; Becker, C.M.; et al. Prevalence, diagnostic delay and economic burden of endometriosis and its impact on quality of life: results from an Eastern Mediterranean population. Eur J Public Health 2024, 34, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thomassin-Naggara, I.; Monroc, M.; Chauveau, B.; et al. Multicenter External Validation of the Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Index Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score. JAMA Netw Open 2023, 6, e2311686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keckstein, J.; Saridogan, E.; Ulrich, U.A.; et al. The #Enzian classification: A comprehensive non-invasive and surgical description system for endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021, 100, 1165–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enzelsberger, S.H.; Oppelt, P.; Nirgianakis, K.; et al. Preoperative application of the Enzian classification for endometriosis (The cEnzian Study): A prospective international multicenter study. Bjog 2022, 129, 2052–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bmj 2007, 335, 806–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerriero, S.; Condous, G.; van den Bosch, T.; et al. Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016, 48, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bazot, M.; Bharwani, N.; Huchon, C.; et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 2017, 27, 2765–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousset, P.; Rousset-Jablonski, C.; Alifano, M.; et al. Thoracic endometriosis syndrome: CT and MRI features. Clin Radiol 2014, 69, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Giovanni, A.; Montanari, E.; Hudelist, G.; et al. Comparison Between Sonography-Based and Surgical Evaluation of Endometriotic Lesions Using the #Enzian Classification - A Retrospective Data Analysis. Ultraschall Med 2023, 44, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frumkin, N.; Schmädecker, R.; Isermann, R.; et al. Surgical Treatment of Deep Endometriosis. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2023, 83, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gui, B.; Valentini, A.L.; Ninivaggi, V.; et al. Shining light in a dark landscape: MRI evaluation of unusual localization of endometriosis, Diagn Interv Radiol 2017, 23, 272–281. [CrossRef]
- Keckstein, J.; Becker, C.M.; Canis, M.; et al. Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis. Part 2: deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open 2020, 2020, hoaa002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altman, D. , Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1990, Vol.
- Montanari, E.; Bokor, A.; Szabó, G.; et al. Accuracy of sonography for non-invasive detection of ovarian and deep endometriosis using #Enzian classification: prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022, 59, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bendifallah, S.; Roman, H.; Rubod, C.; et al. Impact of hospital and surgeon case volume on morbidity in colorectal endometriosis management: a plea to define criteria for expert centers. Surg Endosc 2018, 32, 2003–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Condous, G.; Gerges, B.; Thomassin-Naggara, I.; et al. Non-invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement(). Hum Reprod Open 2024, 2024, hoae029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keckstein, J.; Hoopmann, M.; Merz, E.; et al. Expert opinion on the use of transvaginal sonography for presurgical staging and classification of endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023, 307, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerriero, S.; Ajossa, S.; Pagliuca, M.; et al. Advances in Imaging for Assessing Pelvic Endometriosis. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burla, L.; Scheiner, D.; Samartzis, E.P.; et al. The ENZIAN score as a preoperative MRI-based classification instrument for deep infiltrating endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019, 300, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Paola, V.; Manfredi, R.; Castelli, F.; et al. Detection and localization of deep endometriosis by means of MRI and correlation with the ENZIAN score. Eur J Radiol 2015, 84, 568–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Resende, J.A.J.; Cavalini, L.T.; Crispi, C.P.; et al. Risk of urinary retention after nerve-sparing surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 2017, 36, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, H.; Desnyder, E.; Pontré, J.; et al. Combined vaginal-laparoscopic approach vs. laparoscopy alone for prevention of bladder voiding dysfunction after removal of large rectovaginal endometriosis. J Visc Surg 2021, 158, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keckstein, J.; Hudelist, G. Classification of deep endometriosis (DE) including bowel endometriosis: From r-ASRM to #Enzian-classification. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2021, 71, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghezzi, F.; Cromi, A.; Bergamini, V.; et al. Management of ureteral endometriosis: areas of controversy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007, 19, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, Z.; Li, P.; Liu, Q.; et al. Ureteral endometriosis in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis: characteristics and management from a single-center retrospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019, 300, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berlanda, N.; Vercellini, P.; Carmignani, L.; et al. Ureteral and vesical endometriosis. Two different clinical entities sharing the same pathogenesis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009, 64, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barra, F.; Scala, C.; Biscaldi, E.; et al. Ureteral endometriosis: a systematic review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis,treatment, risk of malignant transformation and fertility. Hum Reprod Update 2018, 24, 710–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maccagnano, C.; Pellucchi, F.; Rocchini, L.; et al. Ureteral endometriosis: proposal for a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm with a review of the literature. Urol Int 2013, 91, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]




| k Cohen | |
|---|---|
| P | 0.519; SE 0.041 (95% CI, 0.437–0.600) |
| O left | 0.722; SE 0.038 (95% CI, 0.648-0.797) |
| O right | 0.754; SE 0.036 (95% CI, 0.684-0.823) |
| T left | 0.795; SE 0.031 (95% CI, 0.735-0.856) |
| T right | 0.791; SE 0.031 (95% CI, 0.729-0.853) |
| A | 0.690; SE 0.038 (95% CI, 0.614-0.765) |
| B left | 0.643; SE 0.036 (95% CI, 0.573-0.714) |
| B right | 0.653; SE 0.036 (95% CI, 0.582-0.723) |
| C | 0.766; SE 0.036 (95% CI, 0.695-0.836) |
| F adenom | 0.776; SE 0.041 (95% CI, 0.696-0.856) |
| F bladder | 0.448; SE 0.071 (95% CI, 0.309-0.586) |
| F intest | 0.647; SE 0.048 (95% CI, 0.553-0.741) |
| F ureter | 0.374; SE 0.050 (95% CI, 0.275-0.472) |
| F nerve | 0.031; SE 0.041 (95% CI, -0.049 to 0.111) |
| F diaphragm | 0.663; SE 0.224 (95% CI, 0.224-1.000) |
| F lung | 0.000; SE 0.000 (95% CI, -0.000 to 0.000) |
| F muscle | -0.033; SE 0.010 (95% CI, -0.053 to -0.013) |
| F appendix | -0.022; SE 0.009 (95% CI, -0.039 to -0.005) |
| F bone | -0.011; SE 0.006 (95% CI, -0.023 to 0.001) |
| F abdominal wall | 0.837; SE 0.060 (95% CI, 0.720-0.955) |
| Sensitivity, % (95% CI) | Specificity, % (95% CI) | Accuracy, % (95% CI) | PPV, % (95% CI) | NPV, % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | 98.19 (95.82-99.41) | 83.33 (35.88-99.58) | 97.87 (95.43-99.22) | 99.63 (97.84-99.94) | 50.00 (28.10-71.90) |
| O left | 86.59 (80.40-91.40) | 84.16 (75.55-90.67) | 85.66 (80.85-89.65) | 89.87 (84.94-93.32) | 79.44 (72.19-85.19) |
| O right | 87.32 (80.71-92.31) | 88.72 (82.08-93.55) | 88.00 (83.56-91.59) | 89.21 (83.64-93.04) | 86.76 (80.91-91.02) |
| T left | 96.93 (93.78-98.76) | 82.61 (68.58-92.18) | 94.53 (91.13-96.90) | 96.51 (93.63-98.11) | 84.44 (72.12-91.93) |
| T right | 96.51 (93.23-98.48) | 84.44 (70.54-93.51) | 94.53 (91.13-96.90) | 96.93 (94.11-98.42) | 82.61 (70.39-90.47) |
| A | 96.31 (93.11-98.30) | 83.33 (67.19-93.63) | 94.64 (91.32-96.97) | 97.51 (94.96-98.79) | 76.92 (63.33-86.55) |
| B left | 93.55 (89.73-96.27) | 85.29 (68.94-95.05) | 92.55 (88.84-95.33) | 97.89 (95.38-99.05) | 64.44 (52.51-74.81) |
| B right | 95.31 (91.96-97.55) | 80.77 (60.65-93.45) | 93.97 (90.52-96.45) | 97.99 (95.69-99.08) | 63.64 (49.41-75.82) |
| C | 95.75 (92.53-97.86) | 76.19 (52.83-91.78) | 94.29 (90.89-96.70) | 98.02 (95.85-99.07) | 59.26 (43.76-73.11) |
| F adenomyosis | 92.82 (88.25-96.02) | 85.06 (75.80-91.80) | 90.43 (86.38-93.60) | 93.30 (89.38-95.84) | 84.09 (76.00-89.82) |
| F bladder | 48.08 (34.01-62.37) | 93.04 (88.95-95.97) | 84.75 (80.02-88.74) | 60.98 (47.39-73.05) | 88.80 (85.89-91.17) |
| F intestines | 88.04 (82.46-92.35) | 76.53 (66.89-84.50) | 84.04 (79.24-88.12) | 87.57 (83.07-91.00) | 77.32 (69.41-83.67) |
| F diaphragm | 66.67 (9.43-99.16) | 99.64 (98.02-99.99) | 99.29 (97.46-99.91) | 66.67 (19.46-94.30) | 99.64 (98.25-99.93) |
| F lung | na | 99.65 (98.04-99.99) | na | na | 100.00 (98.70-100.00) |
| F muscle | 0.00 (0.00-18.53) | 97.73 (95.12-99.16) | 91.49 (87.60-94.47) | 0 | 93.48 (93.37-93.59) |
| F appendix | 0.00 (0.00-24.71) | 98.51 (96.24-99.59)) | 93.97 (90.52-96.45) | 0 | 95.32 (95.26-95.39) |
| F bone | 0.00 (0.00-40.96) | 99.27 (97.40-99.91) | 96.81 (94.03-98.53) | 0 | 97.50 (97.48-97.52) |
| F abdominal wall | 83.33 (62.62-95.26) | 98.83 (96.63-99.76) | 97.51 (94.93-98.99) | 86.96 (68.09-95.42) | 98.45 (96.29-99.36) |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).