<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
To estimate the laparoscopic frequency of endosalpingiosis versus other causes of peritoneal proliferation.Clinic-based, prospective, nonrandomized study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).University-affiliated hospital.The 1107 consecutive women undergoing laparoscopy over 1 year.Peritoneoscopy was performed during laparoscopy. All peritoneal proliferations were excised and examined by histology.In 7.6% of patients there was histologic evidence of endosalpingiosis. The frequency in asymptomatic women undergoing elective sterilization was 8.3%, and in infertile patients it was not significantly higher (11.7%, p = 0.6765). No significant difference was seen between patients with (7.3%) and without (7.9%) lower abdominal pain (p = 0. 7027).Endosalpingiosis is the second most common cause of peritoneal proliferation in the lower abdomen, with histologic evidence of the disorder in more than 7% of premenopausal women. In contrast to endometriosis, endosalpingiosis plays only a minor role in the evaluation of infertility and lower abdominal pain. Because of its relationship to serous ovarian neoplasms of low malignant potential, further prospective studies are urgently needed.
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Uterine Diseases, Adolescent, Middle Aged, Abdominal Pain, Humans, Female, Laparoscopy, Prospective Studies, Child, Infertility, Female, Peritoneal Neoplasms, Aged
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Uterine Diseases, Adolescent, Middle Aged, Abdominal Pain, Humans, Female, Laparoscopy, Prospective Studies, Child, Infertility, Female, Peritoneal Neoplasms, Aged
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 41 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |