Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 14, 2019; 25(6): 696-706
Published online Feb 14, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i6.696
Table 1 Patient characteristics
Shaving (n = 36)Resection (n = 37)P value
Age0.4241
n (%)36 (100)37 (100)
Mean (SD)32.42 (6.57)33.54 (5.32)
Body mass index0.6561
n (%)34 (94)35 (95)
Mean (SD)23.83 (3.96)24.31 (4.83)
Pregnancy0.9143
n (%)36 (100)35 (95)
0 (n)2224
1 (n)55
2 (n)64
≥ 3 (n)32
Parity0.5683
n (%)36 (100)35 (95)
0 (n)2526
1 (n)46
2 (n)63
≥ 3 (n)10
Preoperative medical treatment0.7323
n (%)36 (100)37 (100)
None13
Progestin1616
GnRH analog2018
Estrogen36
≥ 2 treatments46
Symptoms of rectosigmoid endometriosis
Dyschezia0.0202
n (%)29 (81)34 (92)
None to mild169
Moderate to severe1325
Transit disorders0.8932
n (%)29 (81)32 (86)
None to mild1416
Moderate to severe1516
Vomiting1.003
n (%)29 (81)31 (84)
None to mild2728
Moderate to severe23
Rectal Bleeding0.2373
n (%)30 (83)29 (78)
None to mild3027
Moderate to Severe02
Abdominal pain0.9432
n (%)32 (89)33 (89)
None to mild88
Moderate to severe2425
Table 2 Univariate analysis for characteristics of the lesions on rectosigmoid endoscopic ultrasonography
Shaving (n = 36)Resection (n = 37)P value
Thickness< 0.00011
n (%)36(100)37(100)
Mean (SD)4.22 (1.90)6.81 (2.61)
Width< 0.00011
n (%)36 (100)36 (97)
Mean (SD)13.70 (5.29)19.10 (5.53)
Bump0.2613
n (%)36 (100)37 (100)
Presence (%)2 (5.6)6 (16)
Submucosae infiltration0.0072
n (%)36 (100)37 (100)
Presence (%)2 (5.6)11 (30)
Multiple lesions0.3583
n (%)36 (100)37 (100)
Presence (%)1 (2.8)4 (11)
Table 3 Logistic regression for significant variables after multiple imputation for missing data
OR95%CIP value
Thickness1.491.04-2.120.028
Width1.121.00-1.260.054
Submucosae infiltration1.970.31-12.660.475
Table 4 Receiver operating characteristic analysis for thickness
Cut-off (mm)SensibilitySpecificityPPVNPVOverall accuracy
0.91.000.030.511.000.52
5.20.760.810.800.760.78
10.00.051.001.000.510.52