Table 1.
Studies evaluating anogenital distance in women with endometriosis.
| Author | Year | Country | Study design | Number of patients enrolled | AGDAC and AGDAF (mm) | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mendiola et al. (19) | 2016 | Spain | case–control | cases n = 114 controls n = 105 |
AGDAC: Cases: 73.8 (12.1) Controls: 75.7 (11.7) AGDAF: Cases: 23.5 (5.8) Controls: 27.3 (5.7) |
Shorter AGD is associated with presence of endometriomas and deep infiltration endometriosis. |
| Sánchez-Ferrer et al. (20, 21) | 2017 | |||||
| Sánchez-Ferrer et al. (22) | 2019 | Spain | case–control | cases n = 57 controls n = 93 |
AGDAF: Cases: 22.8 (4.6) Controls: 27.2 (5.7) |
Women in the endometriosis group had significantly shorter AGDAF compared with the control group. |
| Crestani et al. (23) | 2020 | France | prospective cohort | cases n = 98 controls n = 70 |
AGDAC: Cases: 83.8 (12.9) Controls: 100.9 (20.6) AGDAF: Cases: 21.5 (6.4) Controls: 32.3 (8.1) |
Surgically and histologically proven endometriosis is associated with a short AGD in women of reproductive age but not correlated either to the severity or to the location of the disease. |
| Peters et al. (24) | 2020 | the Netherlands | case–control | cases n = 43 controls n = 43 |
AGDAC: Cases: 103.9 (12.6) Controls: 111.4 (13.7) AGDAF: Cases: 21.9 (6.2) Controls: 21.7 (6.2) |
The AGDAC was significantly different between groups, with a decreased AGDAC in women with endometriosis. |