Chronic pelvic pain; more than just the bladder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic pelvic pain is much of a burden to those who suffer from it. Additionally, in many patients medical doctors, such as urologists are unable to identify a cause or clear pathology that can explain the pain. Still numerous patients and doctors keep on searching for a cause, focussing particularly on the pelvic organs. Lots of diagnostics and treatment methods are used but often without success. In recent years, we have gained increased insight into the mechanisms of pain and adapted the terminology accordingly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two aspects of chronic pelvic pain have gained more attention. First, the myofascial aspects, especially the role of the pelvic floor muscles in maintaining the pain and as a therapeutic option. Second, the role of the brain and the psychological aspects intertwine with the pain and its consequences also open up for alternative management options. In terminology chronic pain is now included in the ICD-11, a historical change. Introducing chronic primary pain (no cause found) helps us to look away from the organ and deal with the patient as a whole human being.

SUMMARY

The findings reported here are helpful for your daily practice. Looking from a broad perspective gives the patient the feeling of being seen and heard. Working together in a multidisciplinary team makes your work easier and gives more satisfaction.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COU/A44.

The effectiveness of exercise-based telemedicine on pain, physical activity and quality of life in the treatment of chronic pain: A systematic review

Introduction The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise-based telemedicine in chronic pain. Methods We searched the Cochrane, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDRO databases from 2000 to 2015 for randomised controlled trials, comparing exercise-based telemedicine intervention to no intervention or usual care in adults with chronic pain. Primary outcome data were pooled using random effect meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were pain, physical activity (PA), limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were barriers, facilitators and usability of telemedicine. Results Sixteen studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed in three subgroups of studies with comparable control conditions. Telemedicine versus no intervention showed significantly lower pain scores (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.81; -0.34), but not for telemedicine versus usual care (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.41; 0.26) or in addition to usual care (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.50; 1.00). Telemedicine compared to no intervention showed non-significant effects for PA (MD 19.93 min/week, 95% CI -5.20; 45.06) and significantly diminished ADL limitations (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.29; -0.12). No differences were found for telemedicine in addition to usual care for PA or for ADL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.66; 0.34). Telemedicine versus usual care showed no differences for ADL (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.37; 0.53). No differences were found for telemedicine compared to the three control groups for QoL. Limited information was found on the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Exercise-based telemedicine interventions do not seem to have added value to usual care. As substitution of usual care, telemedicine might be applicable but due to limited quality of the evidence, further exploration is needed for the rapidly developing field of telemedicine.