The effect of laparoscopy in chronic pelvic pain on quality of life

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a problem facing gynecologists. Laparoscopy is a minimally invasive surgical technique used for both diagnosis and treatment of CPP. This study aimed to investigate the determination of women with pelvic pain who will benefit from diagnostic laparoscopic surgery and its effect to on quality of life. A prospective designed study conducted between October 2013 - August 2015 including 90 patients at University of Health Sciences, Zekai Tahir Burak Women Health Care, Training and Research Hospital, Turkey. While 45 patients in reproductive age with complaints of non-cyclic pelvic pain for more 6 months constituted the study group, 45 patients with no active complaints who admitted for laparoscopic tubal ligation constituted the control group. Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Visual Analog Scala (VAS) Questionnaire was applied to patients in preoperative and postoperative periods. While VAS score in study group patients before surgery was 6,91±0,92, it was 4,33±1,64 after surgery (p<0.001). In addition, there were statistically significant difference between SF-36 Physical Health and SF-36 Mental Health scores before and after surgery. There was a significant improvement in quality of life in the study group. Laparoscopic approach should be preferred for direct visualization and immediate treatment in patients with CPP. Laparoscopy keeps its importance for patients with CPP, improving quality of life.

Keywords

• chronic pelvic pain
• laparoscopy
• quality of life
• surgery

References

1. 1. Treede R-D. The International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: as valid in 2018 as in 1979, but in need of regularly updated footnotes. Pain reports. 2018;3(2).
2. 2. Reiter RC. Evidence-based management of chronic pelvic pain. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;41(2):422-435.
3. 3. Cox L, Ayers S, Nala K, Penny J. Chronic pelvic pain and quality of life after laparoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2007;132(2):214-219.
4. 4. Howard FM. Chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(3):594-611.
5. 5. Howard FM. The role of laparoscopy in the chronic pelvic pain patient. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;46(4):749-766.
6. 6. Lamvu G, Tu F, As-Sanie S, Zolnoun D, Steege JF. The role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of conditions associated with chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2004;31(3):619-630.
7. 7. Haggerty CL, Schulz R, Ness RB, Investigators CHPS. Lower quality of life among women with chronic pelvic pain after pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(5):934-939.
8. 8. Mathias SD, Kuppermann M, Liberman RF, Lipschutz RC, Steege JF. Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(3):321-327.

9. 9. Howard FM. The role of laparoscopy as a diagnostic tool in chronic pelvic pain. Ballieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;14(3):467-494.
10. 10. Howard FM. The role of laparoscopy in chronic pelvic pain: promise and pitfalls. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1993;48(6):357-387.
11. 11. Farquhar CM, Steiner CA. Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(2):229-234.
12. 12. Elcombe S, Gath D, Day A. The psychological effects of laparoscopy on women with chronic pelvic pain. Psychol Med. 1997;27(5):1041-1050.
13. 13. Doyle DF, Li TC, Richmond MN. The prevalence of continuing chronic pelvic pain following a negative laparoscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;18(3):252-255.
14. 14. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S240-252.
15. 15. Lamvu G. Abstracts from the International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS) Annual Scientific Meeting on Pelvic Pain 2019. Pain Rep. 2020;5(2):e815.
16. 16. van den Beukel BA, de Ree R, van Leuven S, Bakkum EA, Strik C, van Goor H, et al. Surgical treatment of adhesion-related chronic abdominal and pelvic pain after gynaecological and general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(3):276-288.
17. 17. Abdou H, Ismail ME, Elboraie HO, Abou Talib Y. Effect of Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis of Pelvic Adhesions in Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain on Quality of Life. Evidence Based Women's Health Journal. 2020;10(3):223-229.
18. 18. Swanton A, Iyer L, Reginald P. Diagnosis, treatment and follow up of women undergoing conscious pain mapping for chronic pelvic pain: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2006;113(7):792-796.
19. 19. Sutton CJ, Ewen SP, Whitelaw N, Haines P. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of laser laparoscopy in the treatment of pelvic pain associated with minimal, mild, and moderate endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(4):696-700.
20. 20. Baker PN, Symonds EM. The resolution of chronic pelvic pain after normal laparoscopy findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(3):835-836.
21. 21. Malik E, Berg C, Meyhöfer-Malik A, Haider S, Rossmanith WG. Subjective evaluation of the therapeutic value of laparoscopic adhesiolysis. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(1):79-81.
22. 22. Stout AL, Steege JF, Dodson WC, Hughes CL. Relationship of laparoscopic findings to self-report of pelvic pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164(1):73-79.
23. 23. Nezhat FR, Crystal RA, Nezhat CH, Nezhat CR. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis and relief of chronic pelvic pain. JSLS. 2000;4(4):281-285.