Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate long‐term durability and effectiveness of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS). Materials and Methods The retrospective multicenter Iberian ATOMS study (n = 215) was updated to evaluate long‐term continence status, complications, explants, and secondary treatments. Mean follow‐up from surgery to March 2020 was 60.6 ± 18.4 months (range, 39‐91). Eleven patients deceased of an unrelated causes. Kaplan‐Meier curves were performed to evaluate device durability and incontinence free of recurrence interval. The multivariate analysis defined the population at risk of device explant. Results A total of 155 patients were dry at the last follow‐up visit (72.1%); 99 (46%) used no pads and 56 (26%) used a security pad/day with urine loss less than 10 mL; 96% of dry patients after adjustment remained free of incontinence 1 year later, 93.6% 2 years later, 91.1% 3 years later, 89.2% 5 years later, and 86.7% 8 years later. Complications during follow‐up occurred in 43 of 215 (20%). In total, 25 (11.6%) devices were explanted and causes were inefficacy 11 (44%), inefficacy and pain 3 (12%), port erosion 10 (40%), and wound infection 1 (4%). The secondary implant was performed in 11 (5.1%) cases, 6 artificial urinary sphincter and 5 repeated ATOMS. Time to explant was associated to complications (P < .0001), baseline stress urinary incontinence (SUI) severity (P = .01), and former irradiation (P = .03). Multivariate analysis revealed complications (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.71; 3.83‐19.82), baseline SUI severity (>5 compared to 1‐2 pads/day; HR = 14.9; 1.87‐125), and irradiation before ATOMS (HR = 2.26; 1.02‐5.18) predicted earlier ATOMS explant. Three cases received radiation after implant without complication. Conclusions ATOMS device is efficacious and safe in the long term. Determinants for device explant include complications, baseline severity of incontinence, and previous irradiation. Currently, the durability of the device after 5 years is reassuring.

IntroductionChronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common condition affecting up to 26.6% of women, with many suffering for several years before diagnosis and/or treatment. Its clinical presentation is varied and there are frequently comorbid conditions both within and outside the pelvis. We aim to explore whether specific subgroups of women with CPP report different clinical symptoms and differing impact of pain on their quality of life (QoL).MethodsThe study is part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project which is a cross-sectional observational cohort study. The study includes 769 female participants of reproductive age who completed an extensive set of questions derived from standardised WERF EPHect questionnaires. Within this population we defined a control group (reporting no pelvic pain, no bladder pain syndrome, and no endometriosis diagnosis, N = 230) and four pain groups: endometriosis-associated pain (EAP, N = 237), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (BPS, N = 72), comorbid endometriosis-associated pain and BPS (EABP, N = 120), and pelvic pain only (PP, N = 127).ResultsClinical profiles of women with CPP (13–50 years old) show variability of clinical symptoms. The EAP and EABP groups scored higher than the PP group (p &lt; 0.001) on the pain intensity scales for non-cyclical pelvic pain and higher than both the BPS and PP groups (p &lt; 0.001) on the dysmenorrhoea scale. The EABP group also had significantly higher scores for dyspareunia (p &lt; 0.001), even though more than 50% of sexually active participants in each pain group reported interrupting and/or avoiding sexual intercourse due to pain in the last 12 months. Scores for the QoL questionnaire (SF-36) reveal that CPP patients had significantly lower QoL across all SF-36 subscales (p &lt; 0.001). Significant effects were also observed between the pain groups for pain interference with their work (p &lt; 0.001) and daily lives (p &lt; 0.001), with the EABP suffering more compared to the EAP and PP groups (p &lt; 0.001).DiscussionOur results demonstrate the negative impact that chronic pain has on CPP patients' QoL and reveal an increased negative impact of pain on the comorbid EABP group. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of dyspareunia in women with CPP. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for further exploration of interventions targeting QoL more broadly and suggest that novel approaches to classifying women with CPP are needed.

Study question: Do subgroups of women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) report different clinical symptoms and differing impact of pain on their quality of life? Summary answer: Clinical profiles of women with CPP show variability of clinical symptoms both within and between subgroups. However, there is an obvious negative impact of pain on the patients' lives across all subgroups with the comorbid endometriosis and bladder pain symptoms group (EABP) presenting with the higher pain intensities and the lower quality of life. What is known already: CPP is a common condition affecting up to 26.6% of women, with many suffering for several years before diagnosis and/or treatment. The clinical presentation of CPP is varied and there are frequently comorbid conditions both within and outside the pelvis. Evidence from the literature show that there is an overlap of symptoms in chronic pain conditions whatever the underlying cause which suggests that chronic pain could be a condition itself. Study design, size, duration: The study is part of The Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project (https://www.imi-paincare.eu/PROJECT/TRIPP/) which is a cross-sectional observational cohort study. The present study includes 769 female participants sampled from two existing endometriosis-focused cohort studies in Oxford, UK and Boston, MA, USA and newly recruited from the Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC)) in Porto. The participants completed an extensive set of questions derived from standardised WERF EPHect questionnaires. Within this study population we defined a control group (reporting no pelvic pain, no bladder pain syndrome (BPS), and no endometriosis diagnosis, N=230) and four pain groups: endometriosis-associated pain (EAP, N=237), (BPS, N=72), comorbid endometriosis-associated pain and BPS (EABP, N=120), and pelvic pain only (PP, N=127). Participants/materials, setting, methods: All participants were women of reproductive age (13-50 years) and were recruited at three different sites: Oxford (University of Oxford), Boston (Boston Center for Endometriosis (BCE)) and Porto (Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC)). The questionnaire included: demographics; reproductive history; pelvic pain intensity assessed using 10-point numerical rating scales (NRS) for dysmenorrhoea, non-cyclical pain, dyspareunia and bladder pain; medical comorbidities; factors relieving and worsening pain; quality of life assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire; and pain catastrophising. Main results and the role of chance: The EAP (Mean:7.37) and EABP (Mean:7.88) groups scored higher on the pain intensity scales for non-cyclical pelvic pain than the PP (Mean:6.82) group (p<0.001) and higher on the dysmenorrhoea scale than both the BPS and PP groups (p<0.001). The EABP (Mean:6.61) and BPS (Mean:6.52) groups had significantly higher bladder pain scores than the EAP (Mean:0.95) and PP (Mean:0.78) (p<0.001). The EABP group also had significantly higher pain scores for dyspareunia (p<0.001), even though more than 50% of participants (who were sexually active) in each of the pain groups reported interrupting and/or avoiding sexual intercourse due to pain in the last 12 months. Exploring the factors reported to worsen or relieve pain found that across the pain groups the three most reported factors for worsening pelvic pain were: stress (23.6%), full bladder/urinating (23.3%) and exercising (20.2%). The most common factors for relieving pelvic pain were: pain medication (31.4%), lying down (31.0%), and use of a heat pad (29.5%). Analysis of the quality-of-life questionnaire (SF-36) subscales revealed significant differences between the study groups across all SF-36 subscales (p<0.001). In line with the pain results the EABP group reported the negative highest impact across all the health measures while the PP group's profile was closest to the control group's profile. Significant effects were also observed between the pain groups for pain interference with their work (F(3,209)=9.76, p<0.001) and daily lives (F(3,244)=10.51, p<0.001), with the EABP suffering more compared to the EAP and PP groups (p<0.001). Limitations, reasons for caution: Data for this study were derived predominantly from existing cohorts where data have been collected over time and thus different versions of questionnaires have been used. Thus, for some questions only a subgroup may have had an opportunity to complete the measure of interest. Recruitment of participants was impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, sample sizes overall were smaller than originally designed, and our BPS group was predominantly identified from gynaecological rather than urological clinics making it potentially different from other published BPS cohorts. Wider implications of the findings: Overall, our results demonstrate the negative impact that chronic pain has on CPP patients' quality of life and suggests that further exploration of interventions targeting quality of more broadly is important. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of dyspareunia in women with CPP, highlighting the need for more research in this area. Importantly, we show significant differences between the sub-groups of CPP suggesting the need for better patient stratification in future clinical studies and trials. However, the marked variability both within and between CPP sub-groups raises the question whether subgrouping on the basis of clinical diagnosis is the most appropriate strategy or whether alternative approaches could be identified allowing prioritisation of treatments better suited to the individual patient. Study funding/competing interest(s): This project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 777500. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA Companies. Financial support was provided by the J. Willard and Alice S. Marriott Foundation for establishment of and baseline data collection within the A2A cohort - from which the Boston-based TRiPP population was sampled. Clinical Trial registration ID #: NCT04001244

No abstract

Introduction: Ketogenic diet consists in a adequate protein diet (1 qram/kg), low in carbohydrates and rich in lipids, which induces a prolonged state of ketosis that modifies the cerebral energetic metabolism. This study aims to characterize the children with refractory epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet, enrolled in a Child Development Center in Portugal. It intends to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the diet and to identify in which epilepsy syndromes and etiologies the diet is effective. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the cases of refractory epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet. Results: Sixteen children were included, eleven boys. The mean age of seizures onset was 13.9 months (0-72 months) and of ketogenic diet onset was 4.4 years (5 months-16 years). At the end of the first month, 62.5% had a seizure reduction of more than 50%. The efficacy reached 43,8% at the end of third month and 31.3% at the end of the sixth month. In 31.3% there was a reduction of the number of anti-epileptic drugs and 56.3% had an improvement in the behavior/cognition. The diet was more effective in infantile spasms, Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and genetic and structural epilepsies, particularly in malformations of the cortical development. The mean time to a clinical response was 1.4 months. The diet had a good tolerability, with side effects only in 31.2%, none with clinical severity. Conclusion: In this study, ketogenic diet has proven to be safe and effective and should be considered in children with severe and refractory epilepsies.