RESUMO
Introduction: Pelvic mesh was first used for stress urinary incontinence in 1998 following which its usage rapidly expanded to include treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Numerous complications relating to mesh insertion soon became apparent, culminating in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety: First Do No Harm Report published by Baroness Cumberlege in 2020. Following this report, the UCLH London Complex Mesh Centre funded by NHS England, was one of a small number of specialist centres set up for mesh-injured women. The Pelvic Pain service of the Pain Management Centre at UCLH provides a service for patients attending the London Complex Mesh Centre. The aim of our study was to distinguish the differing needs of mesh-injured women from those with chronic pelvic pain by comparing patient-reported outcome measures between these two cohorts. Methods: Distribution of data was calculated using the D'Agostino-Pearson normality test. Mann-Whitney tests were used to ascertain statistical difference between the two cohorts. Ethnicity was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. Quantile regression models were used to assess whether differences in medians between groups remained after adjustment for age and ethnicity. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. Results: Patients with mesh were significantly older than those with chronic pelvic pain and were more likely to be of white ethnicity. After adjustment for age and ethnicity, analysis revealed that bladder interference, sex interference and DAPOS A were significantly higher amongst mesh-injured women, whereas GP and hospital admissions were significantly lower. Discussion: Our data shows the importance of mesh-injured women having access to pain management services with pathways of care integrated within women's and mental health services. It is essential that these programmes include support to discuss ways of returning to sexual relationships and have models to address anxiety such as graded exposure and psychological input.
RESUMO
Whilst. pharmacological therapies remain the cornerstone of pain management in chronic pain, factors including the current opioid epidemic have led to non-pharmacological techniques becoming a more attractive proposition. We explored the prevalence of medical device use and their treatment efficacy in non-cancer pain management. A systematic methodology was developed, peer reviewed and published in PROSPERO (CRD42021235384). Key words of medical device, pain management devices, chronic pain, lower back pain, back pain, leg pain and chronic pelvic pain using Science direct, PubMed, Web of Science, PROSPERO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PorQuest and ClinicalTrials.gov. All clinical trials, epidemiology and mixed methods studies that reported the use of medical devices for non-cancer chronic pain management published between the 1st of January 1990 and the 30th of April 2022 were included. 13 studies were included in systematic review, of these 6 were used in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis for pain reduction showed that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation combined with instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization treatment and pulsed electromagnetic therapy produced significant treatment on chronic lower back pain patients. Pooled evidence revealed the use of medical device related interventions resulted in 0.7 degree of pain reduction under a 0-10 scale. Significant improvement in disability scores, with a 7.44 degree reduction in disability level compared to a placebo using a 50 score range was also seen. Our analysis has shown that the optimal use of medical devices in a sustainable manner requires further research, needing larger cohort studies, greater gender parity, in a more diverse range of geographical locations.