Tatiana V D Sanses1, Gisela Chelimsky, Noel P McCabe, Denniz Zolnoun, Jeffrey Janata, Robert Elston, C A Tony Buffington, Pippa Simpson, Liyun Zhang, Thomas Chelimsky. 1. *University Hospitals Case Medical Center †Case Western R.U. School of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Cleveland ∥College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH ‡Department of Neurology, The Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI §Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC ¶Children's Research Institute, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a detailed pain sensitivity assessment using body-wide musculoskeletal tender points (TPs) in women with different types of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and compare phenotypic differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy women with CPP and 35 pain-free women underwent musculoskeletal evaluation of TPs in the pelvic floor, abdomen, groin, inner thigh, and all 18 fibromyalgia TPs. Patients scored elicited pain on a numeric rating scale. TP pain scores were used for intergroup comparison and intragroup correlation. RESULTS: Women with CPP were grouped as having either bladder pain syndrome (BPS, n=24) or myofascial pelvic pain (MPP, n=11) singularly or both concomitantly (BPS+MPP, n=35). TP pain scores for all evaluations were higher in women with CPP compared with healthy women (P<0.001). Women with BPS+MPP had elevated TP pain for each evaluation compared with women with BPS alone. Pelvic floor and fibromyalgia TP scores correlated strongly in the MPP group, moderately in the BPS+MPP group, and weakly in the BPS alone group. Although some moderate and strong correlations between different body locations were present in all 3 groups, only the BPS+MPP group showed moderate to strong correlations between all body TPs. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed musculoskeletal evaluation of women with CPP is feasible and well tolerated. Careful phenotyping differentiated BPS, MPP, and BPS+MPP groups. Attending to the differences between these groups clinically may lead to more effective treatment strategies and improved outcomes for patients with CPP.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a detailed pain sensitivity assessment using body-wide musculoskeletal tender points (TPs) in women with different types of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and compare phenotypic differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy women with CPP and 35 pain-free women underwent musculoskeletal evaluation of TPs in the pelvic floor, abdomen, groin, inner thigh, and all 18 fibromyalgia TPs. Patients scored elicited pain on a numeric rating scale. TPpain scores were used for intergroup comparison and intragroup correlation. RESULTS:Women with CPP were grouped as having either bladder pain syndrome (BPS, n=24) or myofascial pelvic pain (MPP, n=11) singularly or both concomitantly (BPS+MPP, n=35). TPpain scores for all evaluations were higher in women with CPP compared with healthy women (P<0.001). Women with BPS+MPP had elevated TPpain for each evaluation compared with women with BPS alone. Pelvic floor and fibromyalgiaTP scores correlated strongly in the MPP group, moderately in the BPS+MPP group, and weakly in the BPS alone group. Although some moderate and strong correlations between different body locations were present in all 3 groups, only the BPS+MPP group showed moderate to strong correlations between all body TPs. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed musculoskeletal evaluation of women with CPP is feasible and well tolerated. Careful phenotyping differentiated BPS, MPP, and BPS+MPP groups. Attending to the differences between these groups clinically may lead to more effective treatment strategies and improved outcomes for patients with CPP.
Authors: Dean A Tripp; J Curtis Nickel; Jennifer Wong; Michel Pontari; Robert Moldwin; Robert Mayer; Lesley K Carr; Ragi Doggweiler; Claire C Yang; Nagendra Mishra; Jorgen Nordling Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kenneth M Peters; Donna J Carrico; Scott E Kalinowski; Ibrahim A Ibrahim; Ananias C Diokno Journal: Urology Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Joop P van de Merwe; Jørgen Nordling; Pierre Bouchelouche; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Mauro Cervigni; L Kurosch Daha; Suzy Elneil; Magnus Fall; Gero Hohlbrugger; Paul Irwin; Svend Mortensen; Arndt van Ophoven; John L Osborne; Ralph Peeker; Benedikte Richter; Claus Riedl; Jukka Sairanen; Martina Tinzl; Jean-Jacques Wyndaele Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mary P Fitzgerald; Rodney U Anderson; Jeannette Potts; Christopher K Payne; Kenneth M Peters; J Quentin Clemens; Rhonda Kotarinos; Laura Fraser; Annemarie Cosby; Carole Fortman; Cynthia Neville; Suzanne Badillo; Lisa Odabachian; Andrea Sanfield; Betsy O'Dougherty; Rick Halle-Podell; Liyi Cen; Shannon Chuai; J Richard Landis; Keith Mickelberg; Ted Barrell; John W Kusek; Leroy M Nyberg Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Gisela G Chelimsky; Sheng Yang; Tatiana Sanses; Curtis Tatsuoka; C A Tony Buffington; Jeffrey Janata; Patrick McCabe; Mary-Alice Dombroski; Sarah Ialacci; Adonis Hijaz; Sangeeta Mahajan; Denniz Zolnoun; Thomas C Chelimsky Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Melanie R Meister; Siobhan Sutcliffe; Chiara Ghetti; Christine M Chu; Theresa Spitznagle; David K Warren; Jerry L Lowder Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: A Petrikovets; I E Veizi; A Hijaz; S T Mahajan; F Daneshgari; C A T Buffington; P McCabe; T Chelimsky Journal: Urology Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alison J Huang; Tami S Rowen; Priscilla Abercrombie; Leslee L Subak; Michael Schembri; Traci Plaut; Maria T Chao Journal: Pain Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 3.750