European urology · 2003
Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation as neuromodulative treatment of chronic pelvic pain.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Balken Michael R, Vandoninck Vera, Messelink Bert J, Vergunst Henk, Heesakkers John P F A, Debruyne Frans M J, Bemelmans Bart L H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Neuromodulative therapies have been used with moderate success in patients with chronic pelvic pain. Intermittent Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS) is a new, minimally invasive treatment option, which has shown to significantly decrease accompanying pain complaints in patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction, such as urge incontinence or urgency/frequency. In our study, we evaluate the objective results of PTNS in patients with chronic pelvic pain as their main complaint.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective multicentre trial PTNS was evaluated in 33 patients with chronic pelvic pain. Effects were recorded by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain diaries, the McGill pain questionnaire and the SF-36 general quality of life questionnaire at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Subjective (patients' request to continue chronic treatment to keep the obtained success) and objective responses (decrease in mean VAS >50% and VAS <3 after treatment) were evaluated.
RESULTS: A subjective response was seen in 42% of all patients. In seven patients (21%) mean VAS decreased >50%, in six cases (18%) the decrease was >25%. After 12 weeks of treatment, seven patients (21%) ended up with a mean VAS <3. In all patients quality of life (SF-36) significantly improved, as did the total pain rate intensity (McGill).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite very modest overall success rates and the need for placebo-controlled studies, PTNS may have a place in the treatment of patients with chronic pelvic pain who have already tried many other therapies and are left with no further option.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective multicentre trial PTNS was evaluated in 33 patients with chronic pelvic pain. Effects were recorded by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain diaries, the McGill pain questionnaire and the SF-36 general quality of life questionnaire at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Subjective (patients' request to continue chronic treatment to keep the obtained success) and objective responses (decrease in mean VAS >50% and VAS <3 after treatment) were evaluated.
RESULTS: A subjective response was seen in 42% of all patients. In seven patients (21%) mean VAS decreased >50%, in six cases (18%) the decrease was >25%. After 12 weeks of treatment, seven patients (21%) ended up with a mean VAS <3. In all patients quality of life (SF-36) significantly improved, as did the total pain rate intensity (McGill).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite very modest overall success rates and the need for placebo-controlled studies, PTNS may have a place in the treatment of patients with chronic pelvic pain who have already tried many other therapies and are left with no further option.