Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoperative Tools for Detecting Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Biopsy
Diagnostic Imaging
/ adverse effects
Diagnostic Techniques, Obstetrical and Gynecological
/ adverse effects
Endometriosis
/ diagnosis
Female
Humans
Image Enhancement
Image-Guided Biopsy
Intraoperative Period
Laparoscopy
/ methods
Narrow Band Imaging
Optical Imaging
Peritoneal Diseases
/ diagnosis
Physical Examination
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
5-Aminolevulinic acid
Imaging tool
Laparoscopy
Narrow-band imaging
White light.
Journal
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
ISSN: 1553-4669
Titre abrégé: J Minim Invasive Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101235322
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
22
06
2019
revised:
01
11
2019
accepted:
18
11
2019
pubmed:
25
11
2019
medline:
9
9
2020
entrez:
25
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative laparoscopic imaging tools in reference to that of histopathology for detecting endometriotic lesions and to compare them with conventional white-light inspection by performing a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases in addition to citations and reference lists until the end of February 2019. Two authors screened 1038 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies published in English, assessing the accuracy of intraoperative imaging tools for diagnosing endometriosis during laparoscopy. We considered studies using histopathologic evaluation as a standard criterion. Seven studies were eligible, including 472 women and 1717 histopathologic specimens, and they involved study of the use of narrow-band imaging (2 studies), 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced fluorescence (2 studies), autofluorescence imaging (1 study), indocyanine green (1 study), and a 3-dimensional robotic laparoscopy (1 study). Two authors extracted data and assessed the validity of the included studies. Bivariate random-effects models and McNemar's test were used to compare the tests and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. Four studies were attributed a high risk of bias, and biopsies of normal-looking peritoneum were not performed to verify the results in 3 studies; both factors were identified as significant sources of heterogeneity, leading to the overestimation of the sensitivity and underestimation of the specificity of imaging tools. In all studies, additional endometriotic lesions were diagnosed with the enhanced imaging tool compared with white-light inspection alone. In the 4 studies that appropriately performed control biopsies (171 women, 448 specimens), enhanced imaging techniques were associated with a higher sensitivity and specificity compared with white-light inspection (0.84 and 0.89 compared with 0.75 and 0.76, respectively, p ≤.001). Adverse events were uncommon (n = 5) and reported only with the use of exogeneous photosensitizers. There were no reports of long-term changes in patient-reported outcomes arising from better detection of endometriosis lesions. Studies report that enhanced imaging allows for the detection of additional endometriotic lesions missed by conventional white-light laparoscopy. The benefits of finding these additional lesions using enhanced imaging compared with white-light inspection alone on long-term postoperative outcomes have not been determined, and these tools should be considered only in a research context at this time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31760118
pii: S1553-4650(19)31298-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.010
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
433-440.e1Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.