Background: Although several treatments are currently available for chronic pelvic pain, 30–60% of patients do not respond to them. Therefore, these therapeutic options require a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying endometriosis-induced pain. This study focuses on pain management after failure of conventional therapy. Methods: We reviewed clinical data from 46 patients with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain unresponsive to conventional therapies at Puerta de Hierro University Hospital Madrid, Spain from 2018 to 2021. Demographic data, clinical and exploratory findings, treatment received, and outcomes were collected. Results: Median age was 41.5 years, and median pain intensity was VAS: 7.8/10. Nociceptive pain and neuropathic pain were identified in 98% and 70% of patients, respectively. The most common symptom was abdominal pain (78.2%) followed by pain with sexual intercourse (65.2%), rectal pain (52.1%), and urologic pain (36.9%). A total of 43% of patients responded to treatment with neuromodulators. Combined therapies for myofascial pain syndrome, as well as treatment of visceral pain with inferior or superior hypogastric plexus blocks, proved to be very beneficial. S3 pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) plus inferior hypogastric plexus block or botulinum toxin enabled us to prolong response time by more than 3.5 months. Conclusion: Treatment of the unresponsive patient should be interdisciplinary. Depending on the history and exploratory findings, therapy should preferably be combined with neuromodulators, myofascial pain therapies, and S3 PRF plus inferior hypogastric plexus blockade.
(1) Background: The objective was to compare the exploration of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) patients in different locations and establish the role of physical examination in CPPS patients. (2) Methods: We reviewed clinical data from 107 female patients with CPPS unresponsive to conventional therapies at Puerta de Hierro University Hospital Madrid, Spain, from May 2018 to June 2022. Patients were classified into three groups: (a) pelvic pain; (b) anorectal pain; or (c) vulvar/perineal pain. (3) Results: Although the demographics of patients with CPPS were different, their physical examinations were strikingly similar. Our study observed a comorbidity rate of 36% and 79% of central sensitization of pain. Seventy-one percent of patients had vulvar allodynia/hyperalgesia. Pain on examination was identified in any pelvic floor muscle, in any pelvic girdle structure, and neuropathic pain in 98%, 96%, and 89%, respectively. Patients with vulvar and perineal pain were more different from the other groups; these patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and less central sensitization, less anorectal pain, more pain during intercourse, and greater nulliparity (p = 0.022; p = 0.040; p = 0.048; p = 0.000; p = 0.006; p = 0.005). (4) Conclusions: The findings of this study are related to the understanding of the pathophysiology of CPPS. The physical examination confirms the central sensitization of female patients with CPPS, helps us to determine the therapeutic management of the patient, and can be considered as a prognostic factor of the disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.