DOI 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000013
Chronic perineal pain: analyses of prognostic factors in pudendal neuralgia.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
To establish the prognostic factors and outcomes of patients with pudendal neuralgia (PN).
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
A total of 51 patients with PN treated at the Puerta de Hierro University Hospital of Madrid between January 2011 and June 2012 were included in this study. Patients were compared in relation to pain intensity and response to the first-line treatment of neuropathic pain. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used.
RESULTS
The median for patients' age, duration, and intensity of pain evaluated by visual analogue scale were 40.9, 3.6, and 7.6 years, respectively. Among 45 patients, there were 19 good responders to first-line treatment for neuropathic pain and 26 nonresponders. The 19 responders measured their improvement at 47%. Tramadol was used for nonresponding patients, 30.8% of whom expressed a 35% improvement. Analysis of 45 patients with PN demonstrated that the pain intensity was associated with dorsal clitoris nerve damage (15.4% vs. 52.2%; P=0.035; odds ratio 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-18.1) and with sensory deficit at the S2-S4 dermatome map (57.7% vs. 87%; P=0.05; odds ratio 3.7; 95% CI, 0.80-16.8). The pain located at the dorsal clitoris nerve was a significant prognostic factor for having no response to the first-line treatment of neuropathic pain (28% vs. 53%; P=0.033; odds ratio 4.5; 95% CI, 1.06-19.6).
DISCUSSION: A mixed analgesic ladder for chronic pain showed improvement in 73% of the patients with PN. Pain restricted to the dorsal clitoris nerve and small fibers in the S2-S4 dermatome were classified as bad prognostic factors. A longer duration of pain was also correlated with a worse prognosis.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.