Background: Deep endometriosis is usually associated with severe symptoms and constitutes a complex treatment challenge. Methods: The available evidence has been revisited with the aim of defining an effective diagnostic workup and a safe surgical strategy based on pathogenetic findings. Results: Vaginal, rectal, and bladder detrusor endometriosis appear to be caused by intraperitoneal seeding of regurgitated endometrial cells which implant in the posterior and anterior cul-de-sac and trigger an inflammatory process leading to adhesion of contiguous organs. Excision of posterior deep lesions implies removal of a fibrotic cast of the Douglas’s pouch which may involve the posterior vaginal fornix and the rectal muscular layer, with a not negligible risk of major complications. Removal of full-thickness bladder detrusor endometriosis entails excision of the bladder dome or posterior wall, generally well above the trigone. Transurethral resection is contraindicated. A radical approach to obstructive uropathy is suggested, with resection of the stenotic ureteral tract and reimplantation with antireflux vesicoureteral plasty. Conclusion: Infiltrating endometriotic lesions appear to originate intraperitoneally sharing common pathogenetic mechanisms. Involvement of the intestinal and urologic apparatuses should be identified before surgery, in order to schedule intraoperative consultation and to inform the woman about the type of intervention required and its potential sequelae.

The complete excision of inguinal endometriosis must also include the extraperitoneal portion of the round ligament.

Background: Guidelines recommend limiting melanoma screening in a population with known risk factors, but none indicates methods for efficient recruitment. The purpose of this study is to compare three different methods of recruiting subjects to be screened for melanoma to detect which, if any, is the most efficient. Methods: From 2010 to 2019, subjects were recruited as follows: (1) regular skin examinations (RS), mainly conducted through the Associazione Contro il Melanoma network; (2) occasional melanoma screening (OS), during annual public campaigns; (3) and selective screening (SS), where people were invited to undergo a skin check after filling in a risk evaluation questionnaire, in cases where the assigned outcome was intermediate/high risk. Melanoma risk factors were compared across different screening methods. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were used for multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 2238 subjects (62.7% women) were recruited, median age 44 years (2–85), and 1094 (48.9 %) records were collected through RS, 826 (36.9 %) through OS, and 318 (14.2 %) through SS. A total of 131 suspicious non-melanoma skin cancers were clinically diagnosed, 20 pathologically confirmed, and 2 melanomas detected. SS performed significantly better at selecting subjects with a family history of melanoma and I-II phototypes compared to OS. Conclusions: Prior evaluation of melanoma known risk factors allowed for effective selection of a population to screen at higher risk of developing a melanoma.