Alison M Dixon1, Colleen M Fitzgerald2, Cynthia Brincat3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 South First Avenue, Bldg. 103 / 1014, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 South First Avenue, Bldg. 103 / 1014, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. cfitzgerald@lumc.edu. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 W. Harrison Street, 2 Kellogg, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to assess severity and bother of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women with pelvic floor myofascial pain (PFMP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review assessing new patients within a hospital-based multispecialty group from January 2010 through September 2014 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnosis codes for POP. Data from Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system assessment, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20, (PFDI-20), and clinical assessment of pelvic floor muscles were collected. RESULTS: Of 539 patients identified with POP, 174 (32%) had PFMP on physical exam. The mean stage of prolapse in those with PFMP was 2 [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.93] vs 3 (SD ± 0.80) in those without pain. There was a difference in the presence of prolapse beyond the hymen, with 98 (56%) of those with PFMP having their most dependent point above the hymen (Ba, Bp, or C) and 276 (76%) of those without PFMP having their most dependent point beyond the hymen (p = .000). Women with PFMP were predominantly white, had less-advanced prolapse, and more reported pain or discomfort (adjusted p value = .011, prolapse beyond the hymen p = .000, PFDI -20 p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: One in three women with a diagnosis of POP were found to have PFMP. On average, when pain was present, women had a lower stage of prolapse and were more severely bothered by their pelvic floor symptoms. Although limited by its nature as a retrospective analysis, this study suggests alternative etiologies, and thereby treatments, for symptom bother in women with mild prolapse.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to assess severity and bother of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women with pelvic floor myofascial pain (PFMP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review assessing new patients within a hospital-based multispecialty group from January 2010 through September 2014 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnosis codes for POP. Data from Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system assessment, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20, (PFDI-20), and clinical assessment of pelvic floor muscles were collected. RESULTS: Of 539 patients identified with POP, 174 (32%) had PFMP on physical exam. The mean stage of prolapse in those with PFMP was 2 [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.93] vs 3 (SD ± 0.80) in those without pain. There was a difference in the presence of prolapse beyond the hymen, with 98 (56%) of those with PFMP having their most dependent point above the hymen (Ba, Bp, or C) and 276 (76%) of those without PFMP having their most dependent point beyond the hymen (p = .000). Women with PFMP were predominantly white, had less-advanced prolapse, and more reported pain or discomfort (adjusted p value = .011, prolapse beyond the hymen p = .000, PFDI -20 p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: One in three women with a diagnosis of POP were found to have PFMP. On average, when pain was present, women had a lower stage of prolapse and were more severely bothered by their pelvic floor symptoms. Although limited by its nature as a retrospective analysis, this study suggests alternative etiologies, and thereby treatments, for symptom bother in women with mild prolapse.
Entities:
Keywords:
Pelvic floor myofascial pain; Pelvic organ prolapse
Authors: Chiara Ghetti; W Thomas Gregory; S Renee Edwards; Lesley N Otto; Amanda L Clark Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Gena C Dunivan; Sara B Cichowski; Yuko M Komesu; Pamela S Fairchild; Jennifer T Anger; Rebecca G Rogers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anne G Sammarco; Carolyn W Swenson; Neil S Kamdar; Emily K Kobernik; John O L DeLancey; Brahmajee Nallamothu; Daniel M Morgan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mary Lourdes Lima de Souza Montenegro; Elaine Cristine Lemes Mateus-Vasconcelos; Júlio César Rosa e Silva; Antonio Alberto Nogueira; Francisco José Candido Dos Reis; Omero Benedicto Poli Neto Journal: Pain Med Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Cynthia Brincat; Elisa R Trowbridge; John O L Delancey; Kenneth Guire; Divya A Patel; Dee E Fenner Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sarah A Collins; Michele O'Shea; Nicola Dykes; Olga Ramm; Autumn Edenfield; Ka Lai Shek; Kim van Delft; Molly Beestrum; Kimberly Kenton Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.894