Endometriosis is a common gynaecological disorder affecting 5–10% of women of reproductive age who often experience chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Definitive diagnosis is through laparoscopy, exposing patients to potentially serious complications, and is often delayed. Non-invasive biomarkers are urgently required to accelerate diagnosis and for triaging potential patients for surgery. This retrospective case control biomarker discovery and validation study used quantitative 2D-difference gel electrophoresis and tandem mass tagging–liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for protein expression profiling of eutopic and ectopic endometrial tissue samples collected from 28 cases of endometriosis and 18 control patients undergoing surgery for investigation of chronic pelvic pain without endometriosis or prophylactic surgery. Samples were further sub-grouped by menstrual cycle phase. Selected differentially expressed candidate markers (LUM, CPM, TNC, TPM2 and PAEP) were verified by ELISA in a set of 87 serum samples collected from the same and additional women. Previously reported biomarkers (CA125, sICAM1, FST, VEGF, MCP1, MIF and IL1R2) were also validated and diagnostic performance of markers and combinations established. Cycle phase and endometriosis-associated proteomic changes were identified in eutopic tissue from over 1400 identified gene products, yielding potential biomarker candidates. Bioinformatics analysis revealed enrichment of adhesion/extracellular matrix proteins and progesterone signalling. The best single marker for discriminating endometriosis from controls remained CA125 (AUC = 0.63), with the best cross-validated multimarker models improving the AUC to 0.71–0.81, depending upon menstrual cycle phase and control group. We have identified menstrual cycle- and endometriosis-associated protein changes linked to various cellular processes that are potential biomarkers and that provide insight into the biology of endometriosis. Our data indicate that the markers tested, whilst not useful alone, have improved diagnostic accuracy when used in combination and demonstrate menstrual cycle specificity. Tissue heterogeneity and blood contamination is likely to have hindered biomarker discovery, whilst a small sample size precludes accurate determination of performance by cycle phase. Independent validation of these biomarker panels in a larger cohort is however warranted, and if successful, they may have clinical utility in triaging patients for surgery.

Endometriosis is a common finding among women with infertility, and women who are diagnosed with endometriosis are almost twice as likely to experience infertility. Mechanisms by which endometriosis causes infertility remain poorly understood. In this review, we evaluate the current literature on the impact of endometriosis on oocyte and embryo quality. The presence of endometriosis evidently reduces ovarian reserve, oocyte quality, and embryo quality; however, this does not appear to translate to a clear clinical impact. Analysis of data from large assisted reproduction technology registries has shown that women with endometriosis have a lower oocyte yield but no reduction in reproductive outcomes. There is a need for future studies in the form of well-designed randomized controlled trials to further evaluate the role of surgical and medical treatment options in women with endometriosis undergoing assisted conception.

Management of advanced endometriosis frequently requires a multidisciplinary team approach and international guidelines suggest treatment in centres of expertise. Due to variability of published outcome data, prospective data collection and standardisation of reporting systems have been suggested to improve our understanding of surgical outcomes. The British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE) Endometriosis Centres were established to manage rectovaginal endometriosis, to collect treatment and outcome data, and to provide these data to patients, clinicians and healthcare commissioners. The BSGE Endometriosis Centres Project works on the principle of voluntary participation. Centres that would like to be recognised or accredited as a BSGE Endometriosis Centre need to fulfil a number of basic requirements including working in appropriate multidisciplinary clinical teams, auditing their outcome and having sufficient workload to maintain their surgical skills. The project has already had an impact on where the patients with advanced endometriosis are treated in the United Kingdom. Patients and healthcare professionals are becoming aware of their presence and more patients with the condition are being referred to these centres. It is also expected that the accredited centre status would be required for funding by healthcare commissioners for this type endometriosis.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an established option for the management of infertility in patients with endometriosis, though there remains ongoing debate around the extent to which endometriosis may compromise IVF treatment success, in which fertilization and preimplantation embryo development occur outside the pelvis. Whether endometriosis impacts oocyte and embryo quality and/or endometrial receptivity remains central to this debate. Here, we review the current literature relating to the impact of endometriosis on IVF outcomes and management strategies to consider when performing IVF treatment.

STUDY QUESTION: What outcomes should be reported in all studies investigating uterus-sparing interventions for treating uterine adenomyosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified 24 specific and 26 generic core outcomes in nine domains. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research reporting adenomyosis treatment is not patient-centred and shows wide variation in outcome selection, definition, reporting and measurement of quality. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An international consensus development process was performed between March and December 2021. Participants in round one were 150 healthcare professionals, 17 researchers and 334 individuals or partners with lived experience of adenomyosis from 48 high-, middle- and low-income countries. There were 291 participants in the second round. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Stakeholders included active researchers in the field, healthcare professionals involved in diagnosis and treatment, and people and their partners with lived experience of adenomyosis. The core component of the process was a 2-step modified Delphi electronic survey. The Steering Committee analysed the results and created the final core outcome set (COS) in a semi-structured meeting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 241 outcomes was identified and distilled into a ‘long list’ of 71 potential outcomes. The final COS comprises 24 specific and 26 generic core outcomes across nine domains, including pain, uterine bleeding, reproductive outcomes, haematology, urinary system, life impact, delivery of care, adverse events and reporting items, all with definitions provided by the Steering Committee. Nineteen of these outcomes will apply only to certain study types. Although not included in the COS, the Steering Committee recommended that three health economic outcomes should be recorded. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Patients from continents other than Europe were under-represented in this survey. A lack of translation of the survey might have limited the active participation of people in non-English speaking countries. Only 58% of participants returned to round two, but analysis did not indicate attrition bias. There is a significant lack of scientific evidence regarding which symptoms are caused by adenomyosis and when they are related to other co-existent disorders such as endometriosis. As future research provides more clarity, the appropriate review and revision of the COS will be necessary. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Implementing this COS in future studies on the treatment of adenomyosis will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No specific funding was received for this work. T.T. received a grant (grant number 2020083) from the South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority during the course of this work. T.T. receives personal fees from General Electrics and Medtronic for lectures on ultrasound. E.R.L. is the chairman of the Norwegian Endometriosis Association. M.G.M. is a consultant for Abbvie Inc and Myovant, receives research funding from AbbVie and is Chair of the Women’s Health Research Collaborative. S.-W.G. is a board member of the Asian Society of Endometriosis and Adenomyosis, on the scientific advisory board of the endometriosis foundation of America, previous congress chair for the World Endometriosis Society, for none of which he received personal fees. E.S. received outside of this work grants for two multicentre trials on endometriosis from the National Institute for Health Research UK, the Rosetrees Trust, and the Barts and the London Charity, he is a member of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Medicines for Women’s Health Expert Advisory Group, he is an ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society, and he received personal fees for lectures from Hologic, Olympus, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Intuitive and Karl Storz. M.H. is member of the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy subcommittee. No other conflict of interest was declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Electrosurgery is the most commonly used form of surgical energy in both open and minimally invasive surgery. Advanced electrosurgical devices have revolutionised laparoscopic surgery with increasing uptake of more complex procedures. Although electrosurgical devices are ubiquitous in the operating rooms, evidence around the globe showed that surgeons of different grades and specialties have significant gaps in their knowledge of electrosurgery which can lead to serious complications. Some inherent flaws in electrosurgery partly contributed to such complications. Consequently, the industry developed technologies to address these flaws and minimise complications. On the other hand, the profession is calling for formal training and assessment of all staff involved in the use of surgical energy. The aim of this review is to bridge such knowledge gaps by addressing the basic principles of electrosurgery as well as the mechanisms of its complications. It covers monopolar, bipolar and advanced bipolar electrosurgery along with their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, it highlights the good practice in electrosurgery and how to avoid complications. Recent technological developments in electrosurgery are addressed along with their impact on patient safety. All in all, such knowledge would help surgeons master the use of various electrosurgical devices to achieve the intended effects and minimise risk to patients.