Gynaecological care of women with chronic pelvic pain: Patient perspectives and care preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and care preferences of women with chronic pelvic pain, with or without a history of sexual trauma, seeking gynaecological care. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Ambulatory endometriosis centre. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Women aged 18-55 years with chronic pelvic pain. METHODS: Baseline demographics and sexual trauma history were obtained, and participants were assigned to focus groups according to a positive (four groups, 13 participants) or negative (two groups, nine participants) screen for a history of sexual trauma. The focus groups were led by a clinical psychologist and a gynaecological surgeon and consisted of semi-structured interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were coded in NVivo 12. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content analysis was used to derive themes according to the participants' own words. RESULTS: Participants with chronic pelvic pain, with or without a history of sexual trauma, experienced delay in diagnosis and repetitive dismissals by clinicians. Participants' experiences of dismissals included: clinicians not listening, insufficient allocation of time to appointments and perceived redundant medical testing (i.e. sexually transmitted infection testing, urine cultures, ultrasounds). Participants identified clinician interactions as pivotal in coping with both pelvic pain and sexual abuse. Participants also provided feedback regarding trauma-informed practices and care delivery specific to patients with chronic pelvic pain. CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic pelvic pain, with or without a history of sexual trauma, report negative experiences when interacting with the healthcare system. They have clear needs and preferences regarding gynaecological care and provide feasible suggestions for improving care delivery.

Appendectomy in the surgical management of women with endometriosis and pelvic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of appendectomy in surgical excision of endometriosis and to assess complications associated with appendectomy. METHODS: Retrospective study of women undergoing appendectomy for pelvic pain and/or endometriosis during a primary gynecologic procedure. RESULTS: Record review was performed for 609 women who underwent appendectomy between 2013 and 2019 for pelvic pain (6.9%, 42/609), stage I-II endometriosis (63.7%, 388/609), or stage III-IV endometriosis (29.4%, 179/609). Appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) was present in 14.9% (91/609); 2.4% without endometriosis (1/42, reference group), 7.0% with stage I-II endometriosis (27/388, odds ratio [OR] 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-23.11, P = 0.278), and 35.2% with stage III-IV endometriosis (63/179, OR 22.24, 95% CI 2.99-165.40, P = 0.002). AppE was significantly associated with endometriosis present in other locations (OR 5.27, 95% CI 2.66-10.43, P < 0.001). The predicted probability of identifying AppE ranged from 6% with 0 positive endometriosis sites to 56% when 4 or more sites were identified. There were no complications related to the performance of an appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Women with chronic pelvic pain and/or endometriosis have an increased risk of AppE. Modern appendectomy at the time of gynecologic surgery is safe, with no associated complications in this study. Our findings support the consideration of appendectomy as part of the comprehensive surgical management of endometriosis.

Appendiceal Endometriosis: Is Diagnosis Dependent on Pathology Evaluation? A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnosis of appendiceal endometriosis (AppE) in coincidental appendectomy specimens using standard versus modified histopathologic analysis. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of 300 consecutive patients undergoing coincidental appendectomy at the time of a primary gynecologic procedure. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral hospital in the northeastern United States. PATIENTS: Women aged 22 to 52 years undergoing gynecologic surgery for the management of endometriosis or chronic pelvic pain between 2013 and 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Each appendix specimen underwent standard pathologic analysis with 4 sections performed. Modified pathologic analysis, consisting of standard analysis plus serial sectioning and complete evaluation of the appendix and mesoappendix, was then performed. The first pathologist reviewed all the slides to render a diagnosis. The slides of the subjects with abnormal pathology were rereviewed. On rereview, the diagnosis was confirmed, and the data on which protocol, standard or modified, achieved the diagnosis was rendered. The pathologist performing the second review was blinded to whether the slides from the standard or modified histopathology protocol achieved the original diagnosis. This allowed each specimen to serve as its own control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome is the detection of AppE. The standard analysis identified endometriosis in 7.7% (n = 23) of appendiceal specimens, whereas the modified analysis identified endometriosis in 10.0% (n = 30; odds ratio 1.3; confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; p = .01). When all pathology findings were combined, the standard analysis identified abnormal pathology in 9.3% (n = 28) of the specimens, whereas the modified analysis identified abnormal pathology in 12.3% (n = 37; odds ratio 1.4; confidence interval, 1.1-1.7; p <.01). Other abnormal appendiceal pathology identified in this study included polyps, neuroendocrine tumors, and acute appendicitis. The average number of slides required for the standard analysis was 1.4 compared with 4.9 slides for the modified analysis. At this institution, the average increase in the cost of slide production for the modified protocol was $12.07. CONCLUSION: Modified pathologic analysis resulted in a significantly higher rate of diagnosis of endometriosis and abnormal pathology in coincidental appendectomy performed during a primary gynecologic procedure for endometriosis and/or chronic pelvic pain. The use of a standard pathologic protocol likely contributes to underdiagnosis of AppE. The implementation of a modified histopathologic protocol should be considered for improving diagnosis rates of appendiceal pathology in coincidental appendectomy specimens.

Surgical Excision Versus Ablation for Superficial Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical excision and ablation of endometriosis for treatment of chronic pelvic pain. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 12-month follow-up (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Single academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Women with minimal to mild endometriosis undergoing laparoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Excision or ablation of superficial endometriosis at the time of robot-assisted laparoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) scoring at baseline and 6 and 12 months for menstrual pain, nonmenstrual pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia. Secondary outcomes included survey results at baseline and 6 and 12 months from the Short Form Health Survey, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, and the International Pelvic Pain Assessment. From December 2013 to October 2014, 73 patients were randomized intraoperatively to excision (n = 37) or ablation (n = 36) of endometriosis. Patients were followed at 6 and 12 months to evaluate the above outcomes. After ablation of endometriosis, dyspareunia (VAS scores) improved at 6 months (mean change [MC], -14.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -25.93 to -2.21; p = .02), but improvement was not maintained at 12 months. Dysmenorrhea improved at 6 months (MC, -26.99; 95% CI, -41.48 to -12.50; p < .001) and 12 months (MC, -24.15; 95% CI, 39.62 to -8.68; p = .003) with ablation. No significant changes were seen in VAS scores after excision at 6 or 12 months. When comparing ablation and excision, the only significant difference was a change in dyspareunia at 6 months (MC, -22.96; 95% CI, -39.06 to -6.86; p = .01). CONCLUSION: Treatment with ablation improved dysmenorrhea at 6 and 12 months and improved dyspareunia at 6 months as compared with preoperative data. However, only dyspareunia demonstrated a significant difference between ablation and excision. Excision and ablation showed similar effectiveness for the treatment of pain associated with superficial endometriosis, with ablation showing more significant individual changes. Careful patient counseling regarding expectations of surgical intervention is vital in the management of endometriosis.

Ovarian Artery Embolization as a Treatment for Persistent Ovarian Remnant Syndrome.

Ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS) is a rare condition in which ovarian tissue persists at the site of prior oophorectomy and often causes debilitating pelvic pain. Gold standard of treatment is surgical resection. We report a case of persistent ORS in a 44-year-old female who was successfully treated with ovarian artery embolization after failure of standard medical and gynecologic therapies. The ovarian tissue remnant was reduced by 75% in volume, and the patient was near symptom-free four months after the procedure.

Randomized controlled trial comparing operative times between standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the operative time between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomies and standard laparoscopic hysterectomies. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled women aged 18-80 years attending Penn State Hershey Medical Center between April 23 and October 20, 2014 to undergo hysterectomy. Participants were randomized using a random number generator to undergo either robot-assisted or standard laparoscopic hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the total operative time (surgeon incision to surgeon stop, including robot docking time, if applicable). Intention-to-treat analyses were performed and the operative time was compared between the two treatments for non-inferiority, defined as a difference in operative time of no longer than 15 minutes. RESULTS: There were 72 patients randomized to each treatment arm. The mean operative time was 73.9 minutes (median 67.0 minutes; interquartile range 59.0-83.0 minutes) in the robot-assisted hysterectomy group and 74.9 minutes (median 65.5 minutes; interquartile range 57.0-90.5 minutes) in the standard laparoscopic hysterectomy group. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in operative time was 6.6 minutes, below the 15-minute measure of non-inferiority. CONCLUSION: When performed by a surgeon experienced in both techniques, the operative time for robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy was non-inferior to that achieved with standard laparoscopic hysterectomy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02118974.

Characteristics of patients undergoing hysterectomy for failed endometrial ablation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endometrial ablation is a minimally invasive procedure for menorrhagia. High success rates are documented with >90% of patients experiencing satisfaction. However, adequate relief after endometrial ablation is not obtained in a cohort of patients. The purpose of this study is to identify the characteristics of patients for whom endometrial ablation fails due to persistent symptoms, causing them to choose hysterectomy for definitive treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent hysterectomy for persistent menorrhagia, pain, or both, who previously had endometrial ablation. We reviewed medical records including pathology reports from hysterectomy. We compared demographics to a group previously studied at our institution that were identified as satisfied 5 years after ablation. RESULTS: The number of patients in our study group was 51 (n = 51). Median age of patients was 39 (range 29-50) years. Average body mass index was 31 (range 19-47) kg/m(2). Average parity was 1.9. Sixty-nine percent underwent tubal ligation. The majority were nonsmokers (75%). Ninety-six percent were Caucasian. Compared with the previously studied satisfied group, the only statistically significant difference was age. Of 51 patients, 11 (22%) noted pelvic pain as their chief concern. Menorrhagia was the chief concern in 22 (43%). Eighteen patients (35%) complained of both. The most common diagnosis was endometriosis, which was identified in 35 patients (68%). Leiomyomata were present in 33 patients (64%). Adenomyosis was identified in 22 patients (43%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who present for hysterectomy after endometrial ablation have a high rate of endometriosis, adenomyosis, and leiomyomata, with endometriosis being the most common finding.