000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c16967 _d16967
003			PC16967
005			20220819134955.0
008			220819b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cH12O
041			_aeng
100			_91982 _aMuñoz González, José Luis _eObstetricia y Ginecología
100			_93080 _aVellido Cotelo, Rocío _eObstetricia y Ginecología
100			_92849 _aOliver Pérez, María de los Reyes _eObstetricia y ginecología
100			_93081 _aHera Lázaro, Cristina de la _eObstetricia y Ginecología
100			_92345 _aAlmansa González, Cristina _eObstetricia y Ginecología
100			_93082 _aPérez Sagaseta, Concepción _eObstetricia y Ginecología
100			_91376 _aJiménez López, Jesús Salvador _eObstetricia y Ginecología
245	0	0	_aEndometriosis node in gynaecologic scars: a study of 17 patients and the diagnostic considerations in clinical experience in tertiary care center. _h[artículo]
260			_bBMC women's health, _c2015
300			_a15:13.
500			_aFormato Vancouver: Vellido Cotelo R, Muñoz González JL, Oliver Pérez MR, de la Hera Lázaro C, Almansa González C, Pérez Sagaseta C et al. Endometriosis node in gynaecologic scars: a study of 17 patients and the diagnostic considerations in clinical experience in tertiary care center. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:13.
501			_aPMID: 25783643 PMC4337097
504			_aContien 35 referencias
520			_aBackground: Endometriosis nodes are observed in extra pelvic locations, particularly in gynaecological scars, with the abdominal wall being one of the most frequent locations. The main objective of the study is to review patient characteristics of cases of endometriosis nodes in gynaecological scars. Methods: A retrospective, observational and descriptive study with a cohort of patients from Hospital 12 de Octubre was conducted from January 2000 to January 2012. We analysed all of the patients who presented with an endometriosis node in a gynaecological scar presentation who had undergone surgery in that period. Descriptive data were collected and analysed. Results: A total of 17 patients with an anatomopathological diagnosis of an endometriosis node in a gynaecological scar were found. The following variables were studied: the age at diagnosis (32.5 years +/- 5.5 years), personal and obstetric history, time from surgery to diagnosis (4.2 years +/- 3.4 years), symptoms (a painful mass that grows during menstruation is the most frequent symptom in our patients), technical analyses by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) (77% of the patients), node size (2.5 cm +/- 1.1 cm) and location (caesarean scar, 82%; episiotomy scar, 11.7%; and laparoscopic surgery port, 5.8%), involvement of adjacent structures (29% of the patients), treatment (exeresis with a security margin in all the patients) and other endometriosis locations (14% of the patients). Conclusions: A high level of suspicion is required to diagnose gynaecological scar endometriosis, which should be suspected in the differential diagnosis of scar masses in reproductive-aged women. Several theories have been proposed to explain the formation of endometriosis nodes in extrauterine localizations. The two of them that seem to be more plausible are the metaplasia and transport theories. Imaging with ultrasound, CT and MR facilitate the diagnosis. FNA could be used for preoperative diagnosis. Treatment must be by node resection with a security margin. In some cases, surgery could be combined with hormonal treatment.
710			_9427 _aServicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología
856			_uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337097/ _yAcceso libre
942			_2ddc _cART _n0