Letters to the editor e34 ing in anatomical planes, although we acknowledge that this appearance can be less clear than that for intraperitoneal rectum. furthermore, as pointed out by Drs Bailey and snyder, disease involving the level of the cul de sac is common, and we have found that this is well within reach of a finger to permit combined laparoscopic and digital palpation to assess the extent of rectal involvement. as for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, we have found that this technique is cumbersome and unhelpful in the pelvis and usually best suited for those learning laparoscopic techniques, and we would far prefer, for the more advanced and bulky rectal endometriosis cases, an open approach via a Pfannenstiel incision, which is only marginally larger than a hand-assist port.the morbidity of segmental rectal resection is well documented. 3 as demonstrated with our disc experience, the majority of patients can be spared the morbidity of the full rectal mobilization that risks rectal denervation. this technique also allows the native rectal reservoir to be preserved, which, in our opinion, reduces the likelihood of subsequent bowel dysfunction. Considering the comparability of outcomes (length of stay, fertility, and complications), it will be difficult for us to justify an open approach that favors segmental resection, and we would consider the approach advocated by Bailey and snyder overly aggressive, although we also take consolation in that they are not as aggressive as others publishing in the domain. 4 Primum non nocere. not only have we demonstrated that we have done "no harm," we have also "done good" with improved symptoms and fertility. as an added bonus, we also achieved this by using a minimally invasive approach in most patients.