Inferior hypogastric plexus blockade versus acupuncture for the management of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain: A randomized clinical trial

10Citations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: To compare the clinical efficacies of inferior hypogastric plexus blockade and acupuncture in the management of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain (CPP). Methods: The study included 117 patients with CPP. Group 1 included 62 patients who underwent inferior hypogastric plexus blockade and group 2 included 55 patients who underwent acupuncture. Pain level was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) immediately and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after treatment. Results: The preprocedure VAS score was 7.6 ± 0.15 in group 1 and 7.7 ± 0.24 in group 2 (p > 0.05). Pelvic pain decreased significantly in both groups after treatment, with pretreatment and posttreatment scores of 7.6 ± 0.15 and 2.2 ± 0.88, respectively, in group 1 (p < 0.0001) and 7.7 ± 0.24 and 4.7 ± 0.11, respectively, in group 2 (p < 0.0001). However, the decrease in pain scores throughout the clinical follow-up was significantly more in group 1 than in group 2 (p< 0.0001). Complete disappearance of symptoms was achieved in 72.6% of patients in group 1 compared to 54.5% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.3737). Patients who did not benefit from the treatment were significantly more in group 2 than in group 1 (25.5% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.0294). No complications were reported in both groups. Conclusion: The study results showed that inferior hypogastric blockade had a 72.6% success rate and showed a significantly higher effect on reducing pain intensity in a short period of time in the management of CPP, compared to acupuncture.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Amin, M. M., Ait-Allah, A. S., Ali, A. E. S. A., Salem, R. A., Ahmed, S. R., & Alsammani, M. A. (2015). Inferior hypogastric plexus blockade versus acupuncture for the management of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain: A randomized clinical trial. Biomedical Journal, 38(4), 317–322. https://doi.org/10.4103/2319-4170.151034

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free