Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rectal endometriosis: predictive MRI signs for segmental bowel resection

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To retrospectively determine the accuracy of MRI rectal and pararectal signs in predicting the necessity for segmental resection in the case of lesions located in the rectum.

Methods

MR images of consecutive patients treated for rectal endometriosis over a 5-year period were reviewed in consensus by two blinded readers. A systematic analysis of 7 rectal (lesion length, transverse axis, thickness and circumference, and presence of a convex base, submucosal oedema and hyperintense cystic areas) and 4 pararectal (posterior vaginal fornix, parametrial, ureteral and sacro-recto-genital septum involvements) signs was performed for each lesion. MRI results were compared to the surgical procedure performed (shaving versus segmental resection).

Results

Among 61 patients studied, 32 received a segmental resection and 29, a shaving. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis allowed determining cut-off values for length (≥ 32 mm), transverse axis (≥ 22 mm), thickness (≥ 14 mm) and circumference (≥ 3/8 radii). The 7 rectal signs, and only the sacro-recto-genital septum pararectal sign, were significantly associated with segmental resection in univariate analysis, nodular thickness ≥ 14 mm and circumference ≥ 3/8 radii being the most predictive signs (odds ratio 94.5 and 60.4, respectively). These 2 signs remained positively associated with segmental resection in multivariate analysis and, when combined, were predictive of segmental resection with an accuracy of 90.2%.

Conclusion

Assessing MRI rectal and pararectal signs may accurately predict the need for segmental resection versus a more conservative approach such as shaving for rectal lesion management.

Key Points

• MRI analysis of rectal endometriosis, taking into account rectal and pararectal signs, may assist surgeons in the decision-making process, in counselling patients regarding the surgical procedure and in adequately allocating resources.

• Among rectal signs, nodular thickness ≥ 14 mm and a circumference ≥ 38% were the most predictive signs of segmental resection.

• Among pararectal signs, only the sacro-recto-genital septum involvement was significantly associated with segmental resection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

95% CI:

95% confidence interval

DIE:

Deep infiltrating endometriosis

OR:

Odds ratio

PPV and NPV:

Positive and negative predictive values

Se:

Sensitivity

Sp:

Specificity

TVS:

Transvaginal sonography

References

  1. Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Vieira M et al (2003) Anatomical distribution of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: surgical implications and proposition for a classification. Hum Reprod 18(1):157–161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chapron C, Chopin N, Borghese B et al (2006) Deeply infiltrating endometriosis: pathogenetic implications of the anatomical distribution. Hum Reprod 21(7):1839–1845

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Piketty M, Chopin N, Dousset B et al (2009) Preoperative work-up for patients with deeply infiltrating endometriosis: transvaginal ultrasonography must definitely be the first-line imaging examination. Hum Reprod 24(3):602–607

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abrão MS, Petraglia F, Falcone T, Keckstein J, Osuga Y, Chapron C (2015) Deep endometriosis infiltrating the recto-sigmoid: critical factors to consider before management. Hum Reprod Update 21(3):329–339

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abo C, Moatassim S, Marty N et al (2018) Postoperative complications after bowel endometriosis surgery by shaving, disc excision, or segmental resection: a three-arm comparative analysis of 364 consecutive cases. Fertil Steril 109(1):172–178.e1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Donnez O, Roman H (2017) Choosing the right surgical technique for deep endometriosis: shaving, disc excision, or bowel resection? Fertil Steril 108(6):931–942

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nezhat C, Li A, Falik R et al (2018) Bowel endometriosis: diagnosis and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218(6):549–562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A, Donnez J (2012) Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril 98(3):564–571

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Cicco C, Corona R, Schonman R, Mailova K, Ussia A, Koninckx P (2011) Bowel resection for deep endometriosis: a systematic review. BJOG 118(3):285–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chamié LP, Blasbalg R, Pereira RMA, Warmbrand G, Serafini PC (2011) Findings of pelvic endometriosis at transvaginal US, MR imaging, and laparoscopy. Radiographics 31(4):E77–E100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R et al (2004) Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology 232(2):379–389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Guerriero S, Condous G, van den Bosch T et al (2016) 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 48(3):318–332

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bazot M, Bornier C, Dubernard G, Roseau G, Cortez A, Daraï E (2007) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography for the prediction of location of deep pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod 22(5):1457–1463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rossi L, Palazzo L, Yazbeck C et al (2014) Can rectal endoscopic sonography be used to predict infiltration depth in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(3):322–327

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Landi S, Barbieri F, Fiaccavento A et al (2004) Preoperative double-contrast barium enema in patients with suspected intestinal endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(2):223–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chapron C, Vieira M, Chopin N et al (2004) Accuracy of rectal endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectal involvement for patients presenting with deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(2):175–179

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nisenblat V, Bossuyt PMM, Farquhar C, Johnson N, Hull ML (2016) Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD009591

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guerriero S, Saba L, Pascual MA et al (2018) Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(5):586–595

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moura APC, Ribeiro HSAA, Bernardo WM et al (2019) Correction: Accuracy of transvaginal sonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 14(8):e0221499

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Härmä K, Binda A, Ith M et al (2020) Cloverleaf sign in pelvic magnetic resonance imaging for deep infiltrating endometriosis: association with longer operation times, greater blood loss, and higher rates of bowel resection. Invest Radiol 55(1):53–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C et al (2017) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 27(7):2765–2775

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perandini A, Perandini S, Montemezzi S, Bonin C, Bellini G, Bergamini V (2018) Defining probabilities of bowel resection in deep endometriosis of the rectum: prediction with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 44(2):292–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Scardapane A, Lorusso F, Francavilla M et al (2017) Magnetic resonance colonography may predict the need for bowel resection in colorectal endometriosis. Biomed Res Int 2017:5981217

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Brusic A, Esler S, Churilov L et al (2019) Deep infiltrating endometriosis: can magnetic resonance imaging anticipate the need for colorectal surgeon intervention? Eur J Radiol 121:108717

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. D’Souza N, Balyasnikova S, Tudyka V et al (2018) Variation in landmarks for the rectum: an MRI study. Colorectal Dis 20(10):O304–O309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Darwish B, Roman H (2016) Surgical treatment of deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis: in favor of less aggressive surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(2):195–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, D’Hoore A et al (2011) Surgical treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement. Hum Reprod Update 17(3):311–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Meuleman C, Tomassetti C, Wolthuis A et al (2014) Clinical outcome after radical excision of moderate-severe endometriosis with or without bowel resection and reanastomosis: a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg 259(3):522–531

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Afors K, Centini G, Fernandes R et al (2016) Segmental and discoid resection are preferential to bowel shaving for medium-term symptomatic relief in patients with bowel endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(7):1123–1129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roman H, Vassilieff M, Gourcerol G et al (2011) Surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum: pleading for a symptom-guided approach. Hum Reprod 26(2):274–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Donnez J, Squifflet J (2010) Complications, pregnancy and recurrence in a prospective series of 500 patients operated on by the shaving technique for deep rectovaginal endometriotic nodules. Hum Reprod 25(8):1949–1958

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roman H, Moatassim-Drissa S, Marty N et al (2016) Rectal shaving for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum: a 5-year continuous retrospective series. Fertil Steril 106(6):1438–1445.e2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Darai E, Ackerman G, Bazot M, Rouzier R, Dubernard G (2007) Laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection for endometriosis: limits and complications. Surg Endosc 21(9):1572–1577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Remorgida V, Ferrero S, Fulcheri E, Ragni N, Martin DC (2007) Bowel endometriosis: presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Surv 62(7):461–470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Clement PB (2007) The pathology of endometriosis: a survey of the many faces of a common disease emphasizing diagnostic pitfalls and unusual and newly appreciated aspects. Adv Anat Pathol 14(4):241–260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Busard MPH, van der Houwen LEE, Bleeker MCG et al (2012) Deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel: MR imaging as a method to predict muscular invasion. Abdom Imaging 37(4):549–557

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Scardapane A, Bettocchi S, Lorusso F et al (2011) Diagnosis of colorectal endometriosis: contribution of contrast enhanced MR-colonography. Eur Radiol 21(7):1553–1563

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nougaret S, Reinhold C, Mikhael HW, Rouanet P, Bibeau F, Brown G (2013) The use of MR imaging in treatment planning for patients with rectal carcinoma: have you checked the “DISTANCE”? Radiology 268(2):330–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ito TE, Abi Khalil ED, Taffel M, Moawad GN (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging correlation to intraoperative findings of deeply infiltrative endometriosis. Fertil Steril 107(2):e11–e12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bazot M, Jarboui L, Ballester M, Touboul C, Thomassin-Naggara I, Daraï E (2012) The value of MRI in assessing parametrial involvement in endometriosis. Hum Reprod 27(8):2352–2358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sciot C, Buy JN (2013) Secondary Mullerian system. In: Buy JN, Ghossain M (eds) Gynecologic imaging, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 439–512

    Google Scholar 

  42. Feldman MK, VanBuren WM, Barnard H, Taffel MT, Kho RM (2020) Systematic interpretation and structured reporting for pelvic magnetic resonance imaging studies in patients with endometriosis: value added for improved patient care. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45(6):1608–1622

  43. Bazot M, Daraï E (2018) Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 109(3):389–397

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Thornton E, Morrin MM, Yee J (2010) Current status of MR colonography. Radiographics 30(1):201–218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Abrão MS, Podgaec S, Dias JA, Averbach M, Silva LFF, Marino de Carvalho F (2008) Endometriosis lesions that compromise the rectum deeper than the inner muscularis layer have more than 40% of the circumference of the rectum affected by the disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):280–285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Biscaldi E, Vellone VG, Venturini PL, Ferrero S (2017) Magnetic resonance enema vs rectal water-contrast transvaginal sonography in diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49(4):524–532

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Moawad NS, Guido R, Ramanathan R, Mansuria S, Lee T (2011) Comparison of laparoscopic anterior discoid resection and laparoscopic low anterior resection of deep infiltrating rectosigmoid endometriosis. JSLS 15(3):331–338

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Roman H, Bubenheim M, Huet E et al (2018) Conservative surgery versus colorectal resection in deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 33(1):47–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Roman H, Abo C, Huet E et al (2015) Full-thickness disc excision in deep endometriotic nodules of the rectum: a prospective cohort. Dis Colon Rectum 58(10):957–966

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ruffo G, Scopelliti F, Scioscia M, Ceccaroni M, Mainardi P, Minelli L (2010) Laparoscopic colorectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis: analysis of 436 cases. Surg Endosc 24(1):63–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tosti C, Pinzauti S, Santulli P, Chapron C, Petraglia F (2015) Pathogenetic mechanisms of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Reprod Sci 22(9):1053–1059

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Roman H, Darwish B, Bridoux V et al (2017) Functional outcomes after disc excision in deep endometriosis of the rectum using transanal staplers: a series of 111 consecutive patients. Fertil Steril 107(4):977–986.e2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Gagliardi ML et al (2010) Discoid or segmental rectosigmoid resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis: a case-control study. Fertil Steril 94(2):444–449

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, Villeurbanne, France

    Pascal Rousset, Guillaume Buisson, Jean-Christophe Lega, Colin Gallice, Eddy Cotte, Laurent Milot & François Golfier

  2. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, 165 Chemin du Grand Revoyet, 69495, Pierre Bénite, France

    Pascal Rousset, Guillaume Buisson, Jean-Christophe Lega, Mathilde Charlot, Colin Gallice, Eddy Cotte, Laurent Milot & François Golfier

  3. Radiology Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Pierre Bénite, France

    Pascal Rousset, Guillaume Buisson, Mathilde Charlot & Laurent Milot

  4. Internal and Vascular Medicine Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Pierre Bénite, France

    Jean-Christophe Lega

  5. Gynecological Oncological and Obstetrics Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Pierre Bénite, France

    Colin Gallice & François Golfier

  6. Oncologic and General Surgery Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Pierre Bénite, France

    Eddy Cotte

Authors
  1. Pascal Rousset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guillaume Buisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Christophe Lega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mathilde Charlot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Colin Gallice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eddy Cotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Laurent Milot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. François Golfier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Rousset.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Pr Pascal Rousset (MD, PhD).

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise: Pr Jean-Christophe Lega (MD, PhD).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects included between June 2012 and July 2013 in this paper have been previously reported/included in “Bowel endometriosis: preoperative diagnostic accuracy of 3.0-T MR enterography—initial results. Rousset P, Peyron N, Charlot M, Chateau F, Golfier F, Raudrant D, Cotte E, Isaac S, Réty F, Valette PJ. Radiology. 2014 Oct;273(1):117–24.”

However, in this last paper, only lesions located above the recto-sigmoid junction were studied, while in the present paper, only lesions of the rectum or the recto-sigmoid junction were studied.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study/observational

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 2.66 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rousset, P., Buisson, G., Lega, JC. et al. Rectal endometriosis: predictive MRI signs for segmental bowel resection. Eur Radiol 31, 884–894 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07170-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07170-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation