Comparing role of laparoscopy, ultrasound and clinical examination in pelvic pain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172921Keywords:
Clinical examination, Laparoscopy, Pelvic pain, UltrasonographyAbstract
Background: Pelvic pain is a frequent and poorly understood complaint in women of reproductive age group, which is one of the most perplexing problems faced by the gynaecologist. This study was conducted to detect the cause of pelvic pain and to correlate clinical diagnosis, ultrasound, and laparoscopic di-agnosis and formulate treatment modalities.
Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, JLN Hospital and RC, Bhilai, Chattisgarh during the one year period from September 2014 to August 2015. 97 women belonging age 15 to 65 years with history of pelvic pain (acute / chronic) were admitted after excluding history of acute abdominal trauma, diagnosed gynaecological malignant disorder, severe cardiac/respiratory disease or signs of peritonitis. A detailed history was taken and clinical examination was done.
Results: The age group in the present study was between 15 to 65 years. Among them, 36% cases belonged to 20-30 years age group. Clinically the most common sign was abdominal tenderness (59.89%). Clinically 47 cases (48.45%) had abnormal findings, on ultrasonography 61 cases (62.88%) had abnormal findings as compared to laparoscopy which could detect 75 cases (77.32%) showing abnormality. Most common pelvic pathology was adhesions (17.52%) followed by PID (14.43%). None of the cases of adhesions, fimbrial cyst, pelvic congestion syndrome and appendicitis were diagnosed clinically or ultrasonographically, all cases were diagnosed on laparoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination is 54% and 49% as compared to laparoscopy respectively. The PPV and NPV of clinical examination is 24% and 78% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography is 59% and 69% as compared to laparoscopy respectively. The PPV and NPV of Ultrasonography is 36% and 85% respectively. Appropriate surgical intervention like salphingooopherectomy, adhesiolysis, myomectomy, hysterectomy was carried out laparoscopically.
Conclusions: Laparoscopy eliminates the diagnostic error and corrects the wrong diagnosis. Laparoscopy is a more sensitive and superior method for evaluation of pelvic pain as compared to Ultrasonography. Laparoscope has definitive place in evaluating patients with pelvic pain and often a definitive procedure can be undertaken with the laparoscope without subjecting the patient to laparotomy.
References
RCOG Guideline No. 41 (2005). The initial management of chronic pelvic pain.
Roseff SJ, Murphy AA. Laparoscopy in the diagnosis and therapy of chronic pelvic pain. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1990;33:137-44.
Ikechebelu JI. Experience with diagnostic laparoscopy for gynecological indications. Nigerian J Clin Prac. 2013;16(2):155-8.
Demir F, Ozcimen EE, Oral HB. The role of gynecological, urological, and psychiatric factors in chronic pelvic pain. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(5):1215-20.
Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Jenkinson CP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH et al. The community prevalence of chronic pelvic pain in women and associated illness behaviour. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:541-7.
Rulin MC, Davidson AR, Philliber SG, Graves WL, Cushman LF. Long-term effect of tubal sterilization on menstrual indices and pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:118-21.
Thongkrajai P, Pengsaa P, Lulitanond V. An epidemiological survey of female reproductive health status: gynecological complaints and sexually-transmitted diseases. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1999;30:287-95.
Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH, Kennedy SH. Prevalence and incidence of chronic pelvic pain in primary care: Evidence from a national general practice database. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:1149-55.
Ahangari A. Prevalence of Chronic Pelvic Pain Among Women: An Updated Review. Pain Physician. 2014;17(2):E141-7.
Palanivelu C. Art of Laparoscopic Surgery. Textbook and Atlas. 1st ed, New Delhi, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers;2007:3-5,11-20.
Edmonson JM. History of instruments for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(2 suppl):S27-56.
Kelling G. HUJber Oesophagoscopy, gastroscopy and colonoscopy. Münch Med Wschr. 1902;1:21-24.
Kelling G. On the possibility of using cystoscopy in investigations of serous hungen. Munch Med Wochenschr. 1910;45:2358.
Gunning JE. The history of laparoscopy. J Report Med. 1974;12:222-6.
Veress J. New instrument for the treatment of breast or abdomen and phuemothorax treatment. Deutsche Med Wochenschr. 1938;64:1480-1.
Park K. Health Information and Basic Medical Statistics. In: K Park, editor. Textbook of preventive and social medicine. 21st ed. Jabalpur: M/s Banarsidas Bhanot;2005:786-792.
Rawat R, Seth S, Rawat R, Garg R, Shukla S, Vishwakarma S. Chronic pelvic pain in women: comparative study between ultra-sonography and laparoscopy as diagnostic tool. Int J Reprod Contracep Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3:998-1001.
Baloch S, Khaskheli MN, Malik AM. Diagnostic laparoscopic findings in chronic pelvic pain. 2013;23(3):190-3.
Lamba J, Kumar S, Gupta S, Verma N. Laparoscopic evaluation of chronic pelvic pain. JK Science. 2012;14 (2):74-76.
Kamilya G, Mukherji J, Gayen A. Different methods for evaluation of chronic pelvic pain. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2005;55:251-3.
Hebbar S, Chawla C. Role of laparoscopy in evaluation of chronic pelvic pain. J Min Access Surg. 2005;1:116-20.
Gaitan H, Angel E. Accuracy of five different diagnostic techniques in mild to moderate pelvic inflammatory disease. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2002;10(4):171-80.
Sharma S, Meena AK. Laparoscopic assessment of chronic pelvic pain in women – see and fight policy. CIB Tech J Surg. 2013;2:38-44.
