Search

Matthanja Bieze,1,2,* Annelotte Pauline van Haaps,3,4,* Leonardo Kapural,5 Sean Li,6 Kris Ferguson,7 Ralph de Vries,8 Michael E Schatman,9,10 Velja Mijatovic,3,4 Jan Willem Kallewaard1,11 1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Department of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 4Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 5Carolina’s Pain Institute and Center for Clinical Research, Winston Salem, North Carolina, USA; 6National Spine and Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, New Jersey, USA; 7Aspirus Langlade Hospital Pain Clinic, Antigo, Wisconsin, USA; 8Medical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 9Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 10Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 11Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Rijnstate Ziekenhuis, Arnhem, the Netherlands*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Jan Willem Kallewaard, Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Management, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Email j.w.kallewaard@amsterdamumc.nlAim: Visceral pain, characterized by pain that is diffuse and challenging to localize, occurs frequently and is difficult to treat. In cases where the pain becomes intractable despite optimal medical management, it can affect patients’ Quality of Life (QoL). Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a potential solution for intractable visceral pain.Purpose: In this narrative review, we collected all evidence regarding the efficacy of SCS for visceral pain across various underlying conditions.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science in which articles published from October 1st, 1963 up to March 7th, 2023 were identified.Results: Seventy articles were included in this review of which most were retrospective cohort studies, case series and case reports. The studies, often with a small number of participants, reported on SCS for chronic pancreatitis, anorectal pain and bowel disorders, gynaecological diagnoses, visceral pelvic pain, urological disorders and finally general visceral pain. They found positive effects on pain and/or symptom relief, opioid consumption, anxiety and depression and QoL. Complications occurred frequently but were often minor and reversible.Conclusion: Better screening and selection criteria need to be established to optimally evaluate eligible patients who might benefit from SCS. A positive outcome of a sympathetic nerve block appears to be a potential indicator of SCS effectiveness. Additionally, women receiving SCS for endometriosis had a better outcome compared to other indications. Finally, SCS could also relief functional symptoms such as voiding problems and gastroparesis. Complications could often be resolved with revision surgery. Since SCS is expensive and not always covered by standard health insurance, the incorporation of cost-analyses is recommended. In order to establish a comprehensive treatment plan, including selection criteria for SCS, rigorous prospective, possibly randomized and controlled studies that are diagnosis-oriented, with substantial follow-up and adequate sample sizes, are needed.Keywords: neuromodulation, SCS, spinal cord stimulation, visceral pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic pain

Study Question: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)?, Summary Answer: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR., What Is Known Already: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR., Main Results and the Role of Chance: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG., Wider Implications of the Findings: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare., Trial Registration Number: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int)., Trial Registration Date: 16-01-2021., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent chronic disease characterized by the presence of endometriumlike tissue outside the uterus and is often associated with symptoms, such as dysmenorrhea, dysuria, dyschezia, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility. Moreover, women diagnosed with endometriosis can report gastrointestinal symptoms, including bloating, constipation or diarrhea, and abdominal cramping, which can be associated with irritable bowel syndrome and can result in the misdiagnosis of endometriosis as irritable bowel syndrome at first. Treatment usually involves hormonal therapy, pain management, surgery, and/or assisted reproductive techniques in case of infertility. Nonetheless, these treatment methods can be insufficient for alleviating symptoms or can have unacceptable side effects, leading to noncompliance. Therefore, women often apply self-management strategies, including dietary interventions. One of the diets frequently suggested as a tool to manage endometriosis-related symptoms on social media and patient forums is a gluten-free diet. Although a gluten-free diet has been proven effective in managing nonceliac wheat sensitivity or celiac disease, its effectiveness in endometriosis remains uncertain. The Nurses' Health Study II found it unlikely that gluten intake was a strong factor in endometriosis etiology and symptomatology. To the best of our knowledge, the most frequently cited and sole published intervention study on the efficacy of a gluten-free diet for endometriosis has several important limiting factors, including the absence of a control group. In addition, gluten consumption is highly susceptible to a placebo effect and a nocebo effect, where women might experience symptom relief after eliminating gluten and return of symptoms after they consume gluten again, solely because they believe that gluten is bad for them. Despite the inverse association between body mass index and endometriosis and between a gluten-free diet and increased body mass index, this is an association, and no causality was proven. In addition, other factors should be taken into consideration. Of note, a gluten-free diet is expensive, has limited availability, and has a significant effect on quality of life. Moreover, without proper dietary guidance, it may adversely affect the gastrointestinal microbiome. Therefore, scientifically substantiated advice regarding the use of a gluten-free diet for endometriosis-related symptoms is currently not available, and a gluten-free diet should be discouraged unless there is an additional diagnosis of nonceliac wheat sensitivity or celiac disease., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Study Question: What is the influence of dietary interventions, namely the low fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides, and polyols (Low FODMAP) diet and endometriosis diet, on endometriosis-related pain and quality of life (QoL) compared to a control group?, Summary Answer: After adhering to a dietary intervention for 6 months, women with endometriosis reported less pain and an improved QoL compared to baseline whereas, compared to the control group, they reported less bloating and a better QoL in 3 of 11 domains., What Is Known Already: Standard endometriosis treatment can be insufficient or may be accompanied by unacceptable side effects. This has resulted in an increasing interest in self-management strategies, including the appliance of the Low FODMAP diet and the endometriosis diet (an experience-based avoidance diet, developed by women with endometriosis). The Low FODMAP diet has previously been found effective in reducing endometriosis-related pain symptoms, whereas only limited studies are available on the efficacy of the endometriosis diet. A survey study recently found the endometriosis diet effective in improving QoL but currently no guidelines on use of the diet exist., Study Design, Size, Duration: A prospective one-center pilot study was performed between April 2021 and December 2022. Participants could choose between adherence to a diet-the Low FODMAP diet or endometriosis diet-or no diet (control group). Women adhering to a diet received extensive guidance from a dietician in training. The follow-up period was 6 months for all three groups. For all outcomes, women adhering to the diets were compared to their baseline situation and to the control group., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included women diagnosed with endometriosis (surgically and/or by radiologic imaging) who reported pain scores ≥3 cm on the visual analogue score (0-10 cm) for dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and/or chronic pelvic pain. The primary endpoint focused on pain reduction for all pain symptoms, including dysuria, bloating, and tiredness. Secondary endpoints, assessed via questionnaires, focused on QoL, gastro-intestinal health, and diet adherence., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 62 participants were included in the low FODMAP diet (n = 22), endometriosis diet (n = 21), and control group (n = 19). Compared to their baseline pain scores, participants adhering to a diet reported less pain in four of six symptoms (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.012) and better scores in 6 of 11 QoL domains (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.023) after 6 months. Compared to the control group, analyzed longitudinally over the 6-month follow-up period, participants applying a diet reported significant less bloating (P = 0.049), and better scores in 3 of 11 QoL domains (range P = 0.002 to P = 0.035)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: No sample size was calculated since efficacy data were lacking in the literature. In order to optimize dietary adherence, randomization was not applied, possibly resulting in selection bias., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our study suggests that women could benefit from adherence to a dietary intervention, since we found lower pain scores and better QoL after 6 months. However, caution is implied since this is a pilot study, no sample size was calculated, and data on long-term effects (>6 months) are lacking. The results of this pilot study underline the importance of further research and the drawing up of guidelines., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): A.v.H. reports receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. J.W., S.V., J.T., and B.D.B. have no conflicts of interest to report. A.d.V. reports having received KP-register points for internship guidance of J.W., performing paid consultations with endometriosis patients outside the study and receiving reimbursements for educational lectures at the local hospital (Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis, Dordrecht, the Netherlands). A.S. reports having received expenses for travel and hotel costs as an invited speaker from ESHRE. This was outside the scope of this study. M.v.W. reports that she is a Co-Ed of Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. The department of reproductive medicine (V.M.) of the Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)