Burks · Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2021 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=4 studies (346 participants)

Excision versus Ablation for Management of Minimal to Mild Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Cited 24 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 33310168 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.028 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed searching five databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) from inception to May 2020. The authors evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical excision versus ablation for pain reduction in reproductive-aged women with minimal to mild (superficial) endometriosis. Four RCTs totaling 346 participants (individual trial sizes 24 to 170) were included, and data from 3 RCTs were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) score reduction for dysmenorrhea, dyschezia, and dyspareunia with 6 to 60 months of follow-up.

What was found

Meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between excision and ablation in mean VAS score reduction from baseline to 12 months for dysmenorrhea (MD -0.03; 95% CI, -1.27 to 1.22; p = .97), dyschezia (MD 0.46; 95% CI, -1.09 to 2.02; p = .56), or dyspareunia (MD 0.10; 95% CI, -2.36 to 2.56; p = .94). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in mean VAS scores at 12 months and beyond for dysmenorrhea (MD -0.11; 95% CI, -2.14 to 1.93; p = .92), dyschezia (MD 0.01; 95% CI, -0.70 to 0.72; p = .99), or dyspareunia (MD 0.34; 95% CI, -1.61 to 2.30; p = .73).

Why it matters

These findings suggest that surgical excision does not provide superior pain relief over ablation in minimal to mild endometriosis. Surgeons can choose either technique based on lesion anatomy, safety, and clinical context without compromising postoperative analgesia.

Limits

The total sample size was small (4 RCTs, 346 patients), and only 3 studies were pooled quantitatively. Significant heterogeneity was present across the included studies, resulting in wide confidence intervals. Non-pain outcomes such as recurrence rates, fertility, and surgical complications were not reported in the abstract.

Cited by