Objective: To gain insight into patients’ understanding of endometriosis, utilised sources of information on endometriosis, and perceptions of available treatment options. Design: Observational cross-sectional study. Setting: Data were collected from an outpatient specialist endometriosis clinic within a tertiary hospital. Participants: New patients referred with symptoms suggestive of endometriosis. Methods: A paper based questionnaire was completed by new patients on their first presentation to the clinic. Main outcome measures: Patient understanding of symptoms and causes of endometriosis, types and expectations of treatment, and sources of information utilised by patients in researching endometriosis. Results: Approximately half of all included patients were unsure of the aetiology of endometriosis. Patients who relied on information from specialist gynaecologists were more optimistic about the outcome of surgical treatment, while those who relied on general practitioners were more optimistic about the outcome of medical treatment, when compared to those who sought information from online sources. Conclusions: Endometriosis is a chronic and debilitating condition, yet there is limited data available regarding both the sources of information that patients’ access, and their perceptions of the disease. Given the high proportion of patients in our study who lacked knowledge of endometriosis, and the negative correlation between the use of social media for information and perception of treatment, there is a clear need for improved access to evidence-based resources for patient education. Funding: None received Keywords: Endometriosis, laparoscopy, social media, patient education

Background: Rectovaginal fistula is a major complication of surgery for deep endometriosis. Objective: To assess whether placement of a biological mesh (Permacol) between the vaginal and rectal sutures reduces the rate of rectovaginal fistula, in patients with deep rectovaginal endometriosis. Study Design: Retrospective, comparative study enrolling patients with vaginal infiltration > 3cm diameter and rectal involvement in two centers. They benefited from complete excision of rectovaginal endometriotic nodules, with or without a biological mesh placed between the vaginal and rectal sutures. Rectovaginal fistula rate was compared between the two groups. Results: 209 patients were enrolled: 42 patients underwent interposition of biological mesh (cases) and 167 did not (controls). 92% of cases and 86.2% of controls had rectal infiltration greater than 3cm in diameter. Cases underwent rectal disc excision more frequently (64.3% vs. 49.1%) and had a lower distance between the rectal stapled line and the anal verge (4.4+/-1.4 cm vs. 6+/-2.9cm). Rectovaginal fistulae occurred in 4 cases (9.5%) and 12 controls (7.2%). Logistic regression analyses revealed no difference in the rate of rectovaginal fistula following the use of mesh (adj OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.2-2.3). A distance < 7cm between the rectal stapled line and the anal verge was found to be an independent risk factor for the development of rectovaginal fistulae (adj OR 16.4, 95%CI 1.8-147). Conclusions: Placement of a biological mesh between the vagina and rectal sutures has no impact on the rate of postoperative rectovaginal fistula formation following excision of deep infiltrating rectovaginal endometriosis.