4.7 Article

Role of medical therapy in the management of deep rectovaginal endometriosis

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 108, 期 6, 页码 913-930

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.038

关键词

Dysmenorrhea; dyspareunia; endometriosis; medical therapy; pelvic pain

资金

  1. Ferring
  2. Serono
  3. Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defining whether medical therapy is effective in women with deep rectovaginal endometriosis and in which circumstances it can be considered an alternative to surgery is important for patients and physicians. Numerous observational and some randomized controlled studies demonstrated that different hormonal drugs improved pain and other symptoms in approximately two-thirds of women with deep rectovaginal endometriosis. Because major differences in the effect size of various compounds were not observed, much importance should be given to safety, tolerability, and cost of medications when counseling patients. Progestins seem to offer the best therapeutic balance when long-term treatments are planned. Women should be informed that hormonal drugs control but do not cure endometriosis and that, to avoid surgery, they should be used for years. Medical therapy is not an alternative to surgery in women with hydronephrosis, severe subocclusive bowel symptoms, and in those wishing a natural conception. A progestin should systematically be chosen as a comparator in future randomized trials on novel medications for deep endometriosis. In the meantime, the use of existing drugs should be optimized, and medical and surgical treatments could be viewed as subsequent stages of a stepwise approach. In general, there is no absolute `` best'' choice, and women must be thoroughly informed of potential benefits, potential harms, and costs of different therapeutic options and allowed to choose what they deem is better for them. ((C) 2017; 108: 913-30. (C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据