Claire C Yang1, Jane L Miller2, Adam Omidpanah3, John N Krieger2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: cyang@u.washington.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Initiative for Research and Education to Advance Community Health (IREACH), Washington State University, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of implementing a standardized, clinically relevant genitourinary examination for both men and women, and to identify physical examination findings characteristic of urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome (UCPPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed 2 samples: men and women with UCPPS who participated in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network Epidemiology and Phenotyping (EP) Study, and age-matched controls who were either positive for chronic fatigue syndrome or healthy (pain-free). We compared physical examination findings in both positive and healthy controls with UCPPS cases: findings from both the EP examinations and from an extended genitourinary examination. RESULTS: EP and extended examinations were performed on 143 participants: 62 UCPPS cases (30 women, 32 men), 42 positive controls (15 women, 27 men), and 39 healthy controls (22 women, 17 men). EP examinations showed that pelvic floor tenderness was more prevalent in cases (55.0%) than in positive (14.6%) or healthy controls (10.5%). Extended examinations revealed specific areas of tenderness in the pelvic floor musculature. Cases were also more likely than healthy controls to report tenderness in multiple areas, including suprapubic, symphysis pubis, and posterior superior iliac spine, and on bimanual examination. No comparative findings were specific to biological sex, and no evidence of pudendal neuropathy was observed on extended examination of cases or controls. CONCLUSION: The extended genitourinary examination is an easily administered addition to the assessment of men and women during evaluation for UCPPS. Physical findings may help to better categorize patients with UCPPS into clinically relevant subgroups for optimal treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of implementing a standardized, clinically relevant genitourinary examination for both men and women, and to identify physical examination findings characteristic of urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome (UCPPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed 2 samples: men and women with UCPPS who participated in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network Epidemiology and Phenotyping (EP) Study, and age-matched controls who were either positive for chronic fatigue syndrome or healthy (pain-free). We compared physical examination findings in both positive and healthy controls with UCPPS cases: findings from both the EP examinations and from an extended genitourinary examination. RESULTS: EP and extended examinations were performed on 143 participants: 62 UCPPS cases (30 women, 32 men), 42 positive controls (15 women, 27 men), and 39 healthy controls (22 women, 17 men). EP examinations showed that pelvic floor tenderness was more prevalent in cases (55.0%) than in positive (14.6%) or healthy controls (10.5%). Extended examinations revealed specific areas of tenderness in the pelvic floor musculature. Cases were also more likely than healthy controls to report tenderness in multiple areas, including suprapubic, symphysis pubis, and posterior superior iliac spine, and on bimanual examination. No comparative findings were specific to biological sex, and no evidence of pudendal neuropathy was observed on extended examination of cases or controls. CONCLUSION: The extended genitourinary examination is an easily administered addition to the assessment of men and women during evaluation for UCPPS. Physical findings may help to better categorize patients with UCPPS into clinically relevant subgroups for optimal treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: E Messing; D Pauk; A Schaeffer; M Nieweglowski; L M Nyberg; J R Landis; Y L Cook; L J Simon Journal: Urology Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: H Henry Lai; Thomas Jemielita; Siobhan Sutcliffe; Catherine S Bradley; Bruce Naliboff; David A Williams; Robert W Gereau; Karl Kreder; J Quentin Clemens; Larissa V Rodriguez; John N Krieger; John T Farrar; Nancy Robinson; J Richard Landis Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Tatiana V D Sanses; Gisela Chelimsky; Noel P McCabe; Denniz Zolnoun; Jeffrey Janata; Robert Elston; C A Tony Buffington; Pippa Simpson; Liyun Zhang; Thomas Chelimsky Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: J Richard Landis; David A Williams; M Scott Lucia; Daniel J Clauw; Bruce D Naliboff; Nancy A Robinson; Adrie van Bokhoven; Siobhan Sutcliffe; Anthony J Schaeffer; Larissa V Rodriguez; Emeran A Mayer; H Henry Lai; John N Krieger; Karl J Kreder; Niloofar Afari; Gerald L Andriole; Catherine S Bradley; James W Griffith; David J Klumpp; Barry A Hong; Susan K Lutgendorf; Dedra Buchwald; Claire C Yang; Sean Mackey; Michel A Pontari; Philip Hanno; John W Kusek; Chris Mullins; J Quentin Clemens Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 2.264
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: Supuni C Kapurubandara; Basia Lowes; Ursula M Sansom-Daly; Rebecca Deans; Jason A Abbott Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 1.932