Pelvic mapping to explore patterns of chronic pelvic pain. Issue 4 (25th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Aibel, Kelli; Choi, Sharon; Moldwin, Robert
• Is Part Of: Neurourology and urodynamics. Volume 42:Issue 4(2023)
• Page Start: 837
• Page End: 844
• Publication Date: 2023-02-25
• Subjects: bladder pain syndrome -- chronic pelvic pain -- chronic pelvic pain syndrome -- interstitial cystitis -- pelvic floor myalgia -- prostatitis -- vulvodynia; Urinary organs -- Periodicals; Urodynamics -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.25145
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0733-2467

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Chronic pelvic pain syndromes (CPPS) are commonly encountered by urologists and urogynecologists and pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Body maps have been helpful adjuncts to verbal descriptions of pain and may serve a role in phenotyping what is known to be a heterogeneous patient population. The aim of this study was to assess whether patterns of pain as marked on a body map of the pelvis exist among common CPPS diagnoses. The secondary aim was to investigate the association between the total number of pain locations marked on the map and clinical indices in patients with 1 to 3 CPPS diagnoses. Materials and Methods: Data was collected on patients who visited the Northwell Health Pelvic Pain Treatment Center (PPTC) from January to May 2022 and were diagnosed with at least one of four major CPPS diagnoses: interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), pelvic floor myalgia (PFM), chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), and vulvodynia. Demographic data as well as survey data from pelvic pain maps, Genitourinary Pain Index (GUPI) forms, and the short form‐6 of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS‐6) were recorded. Descriptive statistics among CPPS groups and Pearson correlations among the number of CPPS diagnoses were computed. Results: One hundred seventy females and 125 males with CPPS were included in the study. Significant cross‐over in mapping patterns was notable between IC/BPS and PFM groups, both most commonly marking "abdomen" and "genital" regions. The most distinct pattern of pain was seen in patients with CP/CPPS and in patients with vulvodynia. Among the total sample, as the mean number of pain locations marked within the pelvis increased, GUPI and PCS scores increased ( p < 0.05). As the number of CPPS diagnoses increased, the strength of the relationship independently increased. Conclusions: Pelvic body mapping demonstrated that different forms of CPPS displayed different distributions of pain, but mapping was not predictive of any diagnostic group. Nevertheless, the pelvic body map proved useful in identifying precise locations of pain and may help uncover regions of pain that cannot be easily communicated. The total number of pain sites marked appeared to correlate with worse clinical features.