Mindfulness intervention effect on endometriosis-related pain dimensions and its mediator role on stress and vitality: a path analysis approach

Endometriosis-related pain is supposedly mainly responsible for generating psychological stress and deteriorating the quality of life. However, the interaction between these factors has not been investigated, considering its multidimensional nature and through the path of effects of psychosocial approaches. The present study aims to investigate the effect of a brief mindfulness-based intervention (bMBI) on pain dimensions and its mediator role on psychological stress and QoL-Vitality improvement. A secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial using a series of parallel and serial mediators was carried out. The results showed that bMBI improves the sensory (B = -6.09 [-9.81, -2.52], β = -0.42) and affective (B = -3.40 [-5.02, -1.80], β = -0.47) pain. The bMBI effect on psychological stress reduction was mediated by these changes in sensory (B = -2.81 [-6.06, -0.41], β = -0.21) and affective (B = -1.97 [-5.07, -0.17], β = -0.15) pain. Serial sensory pain and psychological stress reduction (B = 2.27 [0.11, 5.81], β = -0.09) mediated the bMBI effect on quality of life vitality. Meditation training promotes additional improvement in affective and sensory pain characteristics through which psychological stress is reduced. The sensory pain dimension must be positively impacted in combination with psychological stress for the bMBI improves women's vitality. Adding a psychosocial intervention like meditation training to the standard treatment plan may be required for some women to achieve the needed changes to restore well-being.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Pelvic Pain After Mesh Implant Surgery for the Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess incidence and risk factors for pelvic pain after pelvic mesh implantation.

DESIGN

Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Single university hospital.

PATIENTS

Women who have undergone surgery with pelvic mesh implant for treatment of pelvic floor disorders including prolapse and incontinence.

INTERVENTIONS

Telephone interviews to assess pain, sexual function, and general health.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pain was measured by the McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire for somatic pain, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory for neuropathic pain, Pennebaker Inventory of Limbic Languidness for somatization, and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) for sexual health and dyspareunia. General health was assessed with the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey. Among 160 enrolled women, mean time since surgery was 20.8 ± 10.5 months, mean age was 62.1 ± 11.2 years, 93.8% were white, 86.3% were postmenopausal, and 3.1% were tobacco users. Types of mesh included midurethral sling for stress incontinence (78.8%), abdominal/robotic sacrocolpopexy (35.7%), transvaginal for prolapse (6.3%), and perirectal for fecal incontinence (1.9%), with 23.8% concomitant mesh implants for both prolapse and incontinence. Our main outcome, self-reported pelvic pain at least 1 year after surgery, was 15.6%. Women reporting pain were younger, with fibromyalgia, worse physical health, higher somatization, and lower surgery satisfaction (all p < .05). Current pelvic pain correlated with early postoperative pelvic pain (p < .001), fibromyalgia (p = .002), worse physical health (p = .003), and somatization (p = .003). Sexual function was suboptimal (mean FSFI, 16.2 ± 12.1). Only 54.0% were sexually active, with 19.0% of those reporting dyspareunia.

CONCLUSION

One in 6 women reported de novo pelvic pain after pelvic mesh implant surgery, with decreased sexual function. Risk factors included younger age, fibromyalgia, early postoperative pain, poorer physical health, and somatization. Understanding risk factors for pelvic pain after mesh implantation may improve patient selection.

Evaluation of endometriosis-associated pain and influence of conventional treatment: a systematic review

SUMMARY Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological disease characterized by sustained painful symptoms that are responsible for a decline in the quality of life of sufferers. Conventional treatment includes surgical and pharmacological therapy aiming at reducing painful symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate pain levels in women with endometriosis, focusing on the influence of conventional treatment in controlling this variable. To do so, a literature search was conducted in the Medline/Pubmed databases, with 119 scientific articles found. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 were selected for reading and elaboration of this review. Thus, 9 studies evaluated the contribution of surgery, 17 the use of drugs to reduce pain levels in patients with endometriosis and one assessed surgical and medical treatment. The main results of these searches are presented and discussed in this revision. Surgery and the use of drugs provided reduced pain scores in patients with endometriosis but nevertheless exhibit disadvantages, such as risk of recurrence and side effects, respectively. Treatment of endometriosis is, therefore, a challenge for gynecologists and patients, as they must select the best therapeutic approach for this disease. However, improved quality of life in these patients has been obtained with the use of conventional treatment.

Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale?

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies concerning endometriosis and pain have been reported. However, there is no consensus on the best method to evaluate pain in endometriosis and many scales have been used. Moreover, there are only a few descriptions of minimal clinically important differences after treatment (MCID) to evaluate variations in pain. In our study, we aim to identify pain scales used in endometriosis pain treatment, to address their strong and weak points and to define which would be the ideal scale to help clinicians and researchers to evaluate endometriosis-related pain.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English, French or Portuguese from 1980 to December 2012, for the words: endometriosis, treatment, pain. Studies were selected if they studied an endometriosis treatment and a pain scale was specified. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed to define strong and weak points of each scale (systematic registration number: CRD42013005336).

RESULTS

A total of 736 publications were identified. After excluding duplications and applying inclusion criteria 258 studies remained. We found that the visual analog scale (VAS) is the most frequently used scale. Both VAS and the numerical rating scale (NRS) show a good balance between strong and weak points in comparison with others such as the Biberoglu and Behrman scale. Concerning MCID, only VAS, NRS and Brief Pain Inventory scales have reported MCID and, among these, only VAS MCID has been studied in endometriosis patients (VAS MCID = 10 mm). Adding the Clinical Global Impression score (CGI) to the pain scale allows calculation of the MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

When using pain scales their strengths and weaknesses must be known and included in the analysis. VAS is the most frequently used pain scale and, together with NRS, seems the best adapted for endometriosis pain measurement. The use of VAS or NRS for each type of typical pain related to endometriosis (dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia and non-menstrual chronic pelvic pain), combined with the CGI and a quality-of-life scale will provide both clinicians and researchers with tools to evaluate treatment response.

Treatment of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis: a committee opinion

Pain associated with endometriosis may involve many mechanisms and requires careful evaluation to confirm the diagnosis and exclude other potential causes. Both medical and surgical treatments for pain related to endometriosis are effective, and choice of treatment must be individualized. This document replaces the document by the same name last published in 2008 (Fertil Steril 2008;90:S260-9).

Chronic pelvic pain in endometriosis: an overview

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) could be considered nowadays a deep health problem that challenges physicians all over the world. This because its aetiology is still unclear, the course of the disease could vary a lot among different patients and through time in the same patient, and the response to treatments is not every time successful. Among women who underwent laparoscopy for CPP, endometriosis is found in about 1/3 of the cases, while only 25% of women with histological confirmed endometriosis are asymptomatic. A wide range of variables may exert their influence on the resulting pain syndrome in endometriosis; for example, score according to American society for reproductive medicine (rASRM), size of the sub-peritoneal and pelvic wall implants, Douglas obliteration, previous surgery. It is widely accepted nowadays that central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) seems to influence each other and this interconnection play a key role in pain modulation. Moreover, the phenomena induced by endometriosis in the pelvis, including the breakdown of peritoneal homeostasis and the induction of the production of proinflammatory and proangiogenic cytokines, are responsible of altered innervations and modulation of pain pathways in these patients. There are many proposed medical and surgical approach to treat this painful syndrome, although there is necessity of more efforts to create new non-invasive strategies that set a more accurate diagnosis of the causes of endometriotic-related CPP, and therefore facilitate its eradication.

Visual pain mapping in endometriosis

PURPOSE

To construct pain maps in order to describe the distribution of pelvic pain in a group of endometriosis patients and endometriosis-free patients, to assess the feasibility of this method.

METHODS

A total of 159 patients with pelvic pain who were scheduled for diagnostic laparoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients with and 42 patients without endometriosis were included. The pain distribution between these two patient groups appeared to differ in some peripheral anatomical structures. In the endometriosis patients, the pain was most frequently located in the rectouterine pouch.

CONCLUSIONS

In endometriosis patients, pain mapping to assess preoperative pain sensations relative to the anatomic location of endometriotic lesions is feasible. The pain provoked by vaginal examination is frequently perceived as median relative to the actual anatomic location of the endometriotic lesions. Several anatomic and neurophysiological factors may explain this phenomenon.