Pudendal Neuralgia: A New Option for Treatment? Preliminary Results on Feasibility and Efficacy.
Venturi M., Boccasanta P., Lombardi B., Brambilla M., Contessini Avesani E., Vergani C.
Prospective Study, published in Pain Med (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Pain Med (2015)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 25677417
- DOI
- 10.1111/pme.12693
Abstract (original English)
The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the feasibility and report the short-term results of a new procedure for treatment of pudendal neuralgia, consisting of transperineal injections of autologous adipose tissue with stem cells along the Alcock's canal. Fifteen women with pudendal neuralgia not responsive to 3-months medical therapy were examined clinically, with VAS score, validated SF-36 questionnaire, and pudendal nerve motor terminal latency (PNMTL). These patients were submitted to pudendal nerve lipofilling. Clinical examinations with VAS, SF36, and PNTML were scheduled during 12 months follow-up, with the incidence of pain recurrence (VAS > 5) as primary outcome measure. Appropriate tests were used for statistics. All patients had preoperative increase of pudendal nerve latencies. Twelve patients completed the follow-up protocol. There was no mortality, and no complications. Two patients had no pain improvement and continued to use analgesic drugs. At 12 months VAS significantly improved (3.2 ± 0.6 vs 8.1 ± 0.9, P < 0.001), as well SF36 (75.5 ± 4.1 vs 85.0 ± 4.5 preoperative, P < 0.01), while PNTML showed a nonsignificant trend to a better nerve conduction (2.64 ± 0.04 vs 2.75 ± 0.03 preoperative, P = 0.06). The new technique seems to be easy, with low risk of complications, and with significant improvement of symptoms in the short period. A larger study w
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.