We read with considerable interest the article by Nezhat and Mahmoud [ 1 Nezhat F.R. Mahmoud M.S. Allen-Masters peritoneal defect: a potential pathway to deep infiltrating rectovaginal endometriosis?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 321-322 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar ]. In response, we believe that neither the images nor the clinical presentation represent traumatic laceration of uterine supports, as reported by Allen and Masters in 1955 [ 2 Allen W.M. Masters W.H. Traumatic laceration of uterine support: the clinical syndrome and operative treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1955; 70: 500-513 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar ]. Rather, the lesion shown in Fig. 1 is a fenestrated cryptic recess in the posterior cul-de-sac, medial to the right uterosacral ligament. It is not an Allen-Masters fascial defect; it is not even in the correct location for an Allen-Masters fascial defect. Allen Masters Peritoneal Defect: A Potential Pathway to Deep Infiltrating Rectovaginal Endometriosis?Journal of Minimally Invasive GynecologyVol. 21Issue 3PreviewDeep infiltrative endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum can be one of the most severe forms of endometriosis. It is characterized by spherically shaped lesions situated deep in the rectovaginal septum and often only visible as a small typical lesion at laparoscopy or not visible at all. This lesion is often more palpable than visible and can be tender during pelvic examination, especially if the patient is examined at the time of menstruation, and can cause severe dyspareunia, back pain, and sometimes bowel symptoms. Full-Text PDF

Study objectives include demonstrating the variable position of the ureter in the presence of peritoneal recesses, clarifying the previously reported association of medial position of the ureter with endometriosis, and reviewing the theoretical risk of injury to the ureter during surgery.

son’s contribution to understanding endometriosis has been formidable and resulted in a relentless search for evidence in support of his regurgitation theory’ [4] . Sampson’s contributions, especially his theory of the pathogenesis of endometriosis [5, 6] , cast the long shadow over the brilliant corpus of work published by Cullen in definitive monographs and numerous scientific articles on adenomyosis and endometriosis, cancer, and uterine myomas, a brilliant corpus of work that earned Thomas Stephen Cullen an international reputation. In ‘A History of Endometriosis’, I devoted three chapters to the contributions of von Rokitansky, three chapters to the contributions of Cullen, and three chapters to the contributions of Sampson. With respect to Cullen, I wrote: ‘One’s respect for Cullen soars when one realizes that he provided sufficient evidence for the historian to reconstruct his personal learning curve for recognizing and treating adenomyomas containing uterine mucosa. This historical reconstruction is possible only because of Cullen’s honesty and his full and meticulous recording of exactly what happened’ [7] . I remain convinced that Carl von Rokitansky discovered endometriosis and I am not convinced by Benagiano et al.’s [1] redefinition of the ‘discovered’ by imposing ahistorical requirements on past definitions. The question is obvious: why the special 21st century definition? I would like to draw attention to the first word in the title: ‘The’ and the phrase ‘In order to attempt to resolve, once and forever, the ongoing controversy over the nature of descriptions made by von Rokitansky in 1860...’. From the foregoing, it is not unreasonable to infer that the authors intend this article as their definitive version of the history of endometriosis and the final article in a series of articles published since 1991 [2] . The authors’ position and the motivation behind their efforts over nearly a quarter of a century – to rewrite the history of endometriosis and in the process diminish or dismiss the original contributions of von Rokitansky – was explained by Professor Brosens when he wrote: ‘It is, indeed a cruel trick of history that the great contribution of Cullen to the knowledge of the nosographic entity of endometriosis is usually all but ignored’ [3] . Ironically, it was not the contributions of Carl von Rokitansky that resulted in the ‘cruel trick of history’, it was the formidable contributions of John A. Sampson. Brosens and Brosens vividly described how Sampson’s reputation gained ascendency over that of Cullen: ‘SampReceived: March 4, 2014 Accepted: March 14, 2014 Published online: May 16, 2014

We propose that the term retrocervical septum be added to the medical lexicon to designate the anatomic location of endometriosis of the septum that separates the vagina and posterior vaginal fornix fromthe rectovaginal pouch of Douglas. Use of the terms retrocervical septum and endometriosis of the retrocervical septum would correct the century-long misuse of the anatomically incorrect term, endometriosis of the rectovaginal septum.

The theory of müllerianosis predicts that embryonic müllerian tissue, misplaced during organogenesis, results in the formation of 4 benign müllerian diseases—developmental adenomyosis, endometriosis, endosalpingiosis, and endocervicosis—(developmental müllerian diseases) that will be identified in human female fetuses, infants, children, adolescents, and adults. Direct evidence is presented to support the existence of developmental adenomyosis, developmental endometriosis, and developmental endocervicosis in human female fetuses along with strong circumstantial evidence supporting the existence of all 4 developmental müllerian diseases in human female infants, children, adolescents, and adults. This evidence throws light upon the pathogenesis of rare müllerian lesions whose pathogenesis remains inexplicable by classical and modern theories. Furthermore, this research has scientific and clinical relevance: scientific relevance because it opens up a new field of comparative research—the 4 developmental müllerian diseases complement the 4 acquired müllerian diseases; clinical relevance because it identifies rare müllerian diseases curable by complete surgical excision.

Endometriosis is such a complex disease with a literature so extensive, that no individual could hope to comprehend the whole. Hundreds of reviews have focused on one aspect or another, but until now, no one has attempted a complete synthesis of relevant scientific and clinical knowledge. Endometriosis: Science and Practice fills this void. Three internationally renowned physician-scientists had the grand vision to select scientific and clinical experts from Asia, Australia, Europe, North and South America to write chapters for a textbook on endometriosis. Linda C Giudice, M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc., is a Distinguished Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA; Johannes L.H. Evers, M.D., Ph.D. is Professor and Chair, Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Biology GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands; and David L, Healy, B.Med.Sci., M.B.B.S., Ph.D., was Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia until his death on May 25, 2012. Professors Giudice, Evers, and Healy state their intentions in the preface of the book.We have aimed to provide a comprehensive approach to the biology, diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. We showcase the latest in molecular, genetic and epigenetic research underlying its pathophysiology, the effects of endometriosis on pregnancy outcomes, insight into its pathogenesis from laboratory studies, animal models, and epidemiologic studies, and rigorous evaluation of clinical diagnostics, and therapeutics—past, present, and future—to alleviate pain and suffering associated with this disorder. To this end the editors engaged skilled scientists, physicians, surgeons and emerging leaders in the field of endometriosis. The text comprises fifty-six chapters unevenly distributed within ten parts: History, Epidemiology, and Economics (3 chapters); Pathogenesis (4 chapters); Disease Characterization (3 chapters); Biological Basis and Pathophysiology of Endometriosis (14 chapters); Models of Endometriosis (3 chapters); Diagnosis of Endometriosis (5 chapters); Medical Therapies for Pain (4 chapters); Surgical Therapies for Pain (7 chapters); Infertility and Endometriosis (4 chapters);and Associated Disorders (9 chapters). The chapters progress seamlessly from research to practice to provide an in depth, scholarly exposition of endometriotic disease. Color plates and figures inserted between parts two and three clarify complex physiopathologic processes. There are three pages of abbreviations, each page with three columns—an indication of the encyclopedic coverage. With few exceptions, such as the omission of “paracrine,” “intracrine,” and “juxtacrine,” the index is complete. Reading chapter after chapter, one builds a firm knowledge base of what is known and unknown. The reader also gains further appreciation for the meticulous planning that so skillfully orders the rational progression of topics. So many chapters might easily have been singled out for special attention from this intellectual feast. Nonetheless, from the perspective of a surgeon interested in pathophysiology and pathogenesis, the explanatory power of two chapters seemed particularly appealing. In Chapter 20, “Uterine Peristalsis and the Development of Endometriosis and Adenomyosis” (based on the structure and function, and autotraumatization of the uterine inner archimetra), Gerhard Leyendecker and Ludwig Wildt present the powerful mechanistic theory of tissue injury and repair to explain the pathophysiology and pathogenesis of adenomyosis and endometriosis. Their theory ‘tissue injury and repair’ complements Sampson's implantation theory for the pathogenesis of endometriosis. In Chapter 21, “Pelvic Mechanisms Involved in the Pathophysiology of Pain in Endometriosis” (informed by their research into the innervation of endometriotic lesions), Ian S. Fraser and colleagues review the neuroanatomy and pathophysiology of endometriosis-associated pain that may culminate in disabling neuropathic pain. They present a hypothetical model sequencing the neuroanatomical mechanisms involved in the generation and experience of pelvic pain in women with endometriosis. One chapter is wanting. In Chapter 28, “Surgical Historical Overview,” the authors emphasize culdoscopy and omit the seminal advances of microsurgery and video-assisted laparoscopic surgery. They also neglect to describe the robotic systems that provide three-dimensional perception and seven degrees of freedom to manipulate ergonomic instruments at conservative surgery for endometriosis-associated infertility and complete excision of deeply infiltrating endometriosis in women with debilitating pelvic pain. Nonetheless, consistently high quality chapters with one exception is a remarkable achievement in a multi-authored book with over a half hundred chapters. Endometriosis: Science and Practice sets a high benchmark in the medical literature. This unique volume is the single best source in the field of endometriosis. It took three senior physician-scientists with great experience, imagination, and command of the literature to conceive a compendium of such clearly written essays covering every scientific and clinical aspect of endometriosis, except surgical technique. Upon a complete reading, one experiences a deeper understanding of endometriosis and the significant inroads that have made over the past 20 years into this perplexing disease. For students of the disease, Endometriosis: Science and Practice provides orientation, substance, and valuable references. For clinicians, surgeons, and researchers in academic centers and centers of excellence specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, and for practicing gynecologists who hold forth expertise in the disease, Endometriosis: Science and Practice provides an unexcelled knowledge base to improve patient care.

Dedication.- Forward.- Preface.- Acknowledgments.- Table of contents.- Introduction.- 1. Prelude - Goethe, Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt, and Johannes Muller.- 2. Intellectual Development of Carl von Rokitansky.- 3. Microscopy and the Discovery of Endometriosis and Adenomyosis 4. From von Rokitansky to von Recklinghausen to Cullen.- 5. cullen's research at johns hopkins hospital.- 6. Adenomyomas of vagina, rectum, sigmoid colon and ovary.- 7. Distribution of pelvic and abdominal adenomyomas.- 8. Sampson's theory of implantation endometriosis.- 9. Life history of ovarian endometriomas.- 10. Explication and defense of sampson's theory of pathogenesis.- 11. Scientific objectivity.- 12. Epilogue.- appendix i.- Appendix ii.- Bibliography.- Index.