Clinical outcome after treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome: Sense and nonsense

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain accounts for approximately 10% of outpatient gynecologic visits and among the varied causes, pelvic congestion syndrome is second only to endometriosis in frequency. Manifestations may include pelvic pain, dyspareunia, dysuria, and dysmenorrhea as well as external varices and a number of psychosocial symptoms. Although a variety of treatments have been proposed—including pharmacologic ovarian suppression, hysterectomy with or without oophorectomy, and ovarian vein resection—transcatheter embolization is the least invasive and most efficacious management option. Complete or partial symptom improvement has been reported in 68.2–100% of patients and there has been a consistent reduction in visual analog pain scores after treatment. Based upon these results, recommendation of either pharmacotherapy or other surgical procedures is difficult to justify. However, it is also clear that 6–31.8% of patients do not get substantial relief from pelvic venous embolization. Potential explanations for an inadequate response to treatment include patient variability, procedural variability, and inadequate outcome measures. The latter are particularly important and future investigation should focus on the development of disease-specific quality of life measures as well as identifying those aspects of the procedure, such as choice of embolic agents and extent of embolization, associated with the best clinical outcomes.