Michelle Proctor

Diagnosis and management of dysmenorrhoea

The prevalence of dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin) is difficult to determine because of different definitions of the condition—prevalence estimates vary from 45% to 95%. However, dysmenorrhoea seems to be the most common gynaecological condition in women regardless of age and nationality.1 2 Absenteeism from work and school as a result of dysmenorrhoea is common (13% to 51% women have been absent at least once and 5% to 14% are often absent owing to the severity of symptoms).3 Dysmenorrhoea, especially when it is severe, is associated with a restriction of activity and absence from school or work. Yet despite this substantial effect on their quality of life and general wellbeing, few women with dysmenorrhoea seek treatment as they believe it would not help.w1 We used Medline (1966 to March 2006) to conduct a literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on the Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2006, and we searched citation lists of relevant publications, including studies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and review articles. We used the following subject headings and keywords: dysmenorrhoea, dysmenorrhea, menstrual pain, period pain, and pelvic pain. Dysmenorrhoea is commonly divided into two categories based on pathophysiology (table). Primary dysmenorrhoea is menstrual pain without organic disease, and secondary dysmenorrhoea is menstrual pain associated with an identifiable disease. Common causes of secondary dysmenorrhoea include endometriosis, fibroids (myomas), adenomyosis, endometrial polyps, pelvic inflammatory disease, and the use of an intrauterine contraceptive device. View this table: Differential diagnosis of primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea Until recently, many medical and gynaecological texts ascribed the source of dysmenorrhoea to emotional or psychological problems—for example, anxiety, emotional instability, a faulty outlook on sex and menstruation, and imitation of the mothers feelings about menstruation.w2 However, experimental and clinical research has identified a physiological reason for dysmenorrhoea—the production of …

Surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways in dysmenorrhea: a systematic review of effectiveness

Objectives. To assess the effectiveness of surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways in primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. Data sources. The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (9 June 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to Nov. 2003), EMBASE (1980 to Nov. 2003), CINAHL (1982 to Oct. 2003), MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, the citation lists of review articles and included trials, and contact with the corresponding author of each included trial. Review methods. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of uterosacral nerve ablation or presacral neurectomy (both open and laparoscopic procedures) for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. The main outcome measures were pain relief and adverse effects. Two reviewers extracted data on characteristics of the study quality and the population, intervention, and outcome independently. Results. Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. There were two trials with open presacral neurectomy; all other trials used laparoscopic techniques. For the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea, laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation at 12 months was better when compared to a control or no treatment (OR 6.12; 95% CI 1.78–21.03). The comparison of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation with presacral neurectomy for primary dysmenorrhea showed that at 12 months follow‐up, presacral neurectomy was more effective (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.03–0.32). In secondary dysmenorrhea, along with laparoscopic surgical treatment of endometriosis, the addition of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation did not improve the pain relief (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.43–1.39), while presacral neurectomy did (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.59–6.21). Adverse events were more common for presacral neurectomy than procedures without presacral neurectomy (OR 14.6; 95% CI 5–42.5). Conclusion. The evidence for nerve interruption in the management of dysmenorrhea is limited. Methodologically sound and sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials are needed.