Use of a novel Likert scale instrument to assess patient satisfaction following endovascular and surgical treatment of pelvic venous disorders

Abstract

Objective The study was aimed at assessing satisfaction with endovascular and surgical treatment, using a novel Likert scale procedure satisfaction instrument, in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) caused by the gonadal vein reflux. Methods This prospective cohort study included 100 women with PeVD who underwent gonadal veins embolization with coils (GVE group, n = 71) or gonadal veins endoscopic resection (GVR group, n = 29) in 2012–2020. The GVE was performed under local anesthesia and sedation, and was left-sided in 61, right-sided in three, and bilateral in seven patients. The GVR was performed under general anesthesia through transperitoneal ( n = 19) or retroperitoneal ( n = 10) access with three access ports in both cases. The GVR was left-sided in 19, right-sided in one, and bilateral in nine patients. To assess satisfaction with GVE and GVR treatment of PeVD, patients were asked to evaluate statements related to their experience using a new Likert scale instrument. The responses for each item were compared between the groups at Day 7 (D7) and at Month 6 (M6) after the procedure, as was a summary score of all the responses at both time points. The summary score allowed categorization on a spectrum from “completely satisfied” to “completely dissatisfied.” Results The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at D7 showed that 80% and 100% of patients, accordingly, reported the overall summary satisfaction, 49% and 79% agreed with a complete pelvic pain relief by D7, 79% and 0% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort during the first postoperative day, 71% and 100% reported no need for analgesics to relief pain in the assess area, 80% and 100% reported fast return to daily activity, and 19.7% and 100% still experienced pelvic pain at D7 (pain in the GVR group was more severe and required the use of analgesics) (all p < .05). At the same time, 94% and 96% patients were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure at D7 ( p = n.s.). The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at M6 showed that 100% of patients in both groups reported overall satisfaction with treatment ( p = n.s.), 96% and 100% confirmed a complete pelvic pain relief by M6, 79% and 65% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort after the procedure, 79% and 65% reported no need for analgesics, 83% and 100% reported about the return to daily activity (all p < .05), and 100% in both groups were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure ( p = n.s.). Conclusions In patients with PeVD, both GVE and GVR are associated with a high, although not significantly different, overall treatment satisfaction in the long term and have advantages and disadvantages. GVE is associated with less severe post-procedural pain, while GVR provides faster relief of pelvic pain and a return to usual daily activity.