Changes in Pelvic Floor Ultrasonographic Features after Flat Magnetic Stimulation in Women with Chronic Pelvic Pain and Levator Ani Muscle Hypertonicity.

Background and Objectives: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) represents a major public health problem for women with a significant impact on their quality of life. In many cases of CPP, due to gynecological causes-such as endometriosis and vulvodynia-improper pelvic floor muscle relaxation can be identified. Treatment of CPP with pelvic floor hypertonicity (PFH) usually involves a multimodal approach. Traditional magnetic stimulation has been proposed as medical technology to manage muscle hypertonicity and pelvic pain conditions through nerve stimulation, neuromodulation, and muscle relaxation. New Flat Magnetic Stimulation (FMS)-which involves homogeneous rather than curved electromagnetic fields-has the potential to induce sacral S2-S4 roots neuromodulation, muscle decontraction, and blood circulation improvement. However, the benefits of this new technology on chronic pelvic pain symptoms and biometrical muscular parameters are poorly known. In this study, we want to evaluate the modification of the sonographic aspect of the levator ani muscle before and after treatment with Flat Magnetic Stimulation in women with chronic pelvic pain and levator ani hypertonicity, along with symptoms evolution. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was carried out in a tertiary-level Urogynaecology department and included women with CPP and PFH. Approval from the local Ethics Committee was obtained before the start of the study (protocol code: MAGCHAIR). At the baseline, the intensity of pelvic pain was measured using a 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS), and patients were asked to evaluate their pelvic floor symptoms severity by answering the question, "How much do your pelvic floor symptoms bother you?" on a 5-answer Likert scale. Transperineal ultrasound (TPU) was performed to assess anorectal angle (ARA) and levator ani muscle minimal plane distance (LAMD). Treatment involved Flat Magnetic Stimulation alone or with concomitant local or systemic pharmacological therapy, depending on the patient's preferences. FMS was delivered with the DR ARNOLD system (DEKA M.E.L.A. Calenzano, Italy). After the treatment, patients were asked again to score the intensity of pelvic pain using the 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS) and to evaluate the severity of their pelvic floor symptoms on the 5-answer Likert scale. Patients underwent TPU to assess anorectal angle (ARA) and levator ani muscle minimal plane distance (LAMD). Results: In total, 11 patients completed baseline evaluation, treatment, and postoperative evaluation in the period of interest. All patients underwent eight sessions of Flat Magnetic Stimulation according to the protocol. Adjuvant pharmacological treatment was used in five (45.5%) patients. Specifically, we observed a significant increase in both ARA and LAMD comparing baseline and post-treatment measurements (p < 0.001). Quality of life scale scores at baseline and after treatment demonstrated a significant improvement in both tools (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Flat Magnetic Stimulation, with or without adjuvant pharmacological treatment, demonstrated safety and efficacy in reducing pelvic floor hypertonicity, resulting in improvement in symptoms' severity and sonographic parameters of muscular spasm.

Pelvic floor hypertonicity in women with pelvic floor disorders: A case control and risk prediction study.

AIM: Myofascial pelvic pain is a chronic and debilitating condition, sometimes associated with pelvic floor disorders (PFD) such as urinary incontinence, defecatory dysfunction or pelvic organ prolapse. Our aim was to identify risk factors in women with PFD and hypertonic pelvic floor, compared to controls without hypertonicity. METHODS: Case control study (2009-2017) of patients with PFD and a diagnosis of hypertonic pelvic floor. Cases were matched with patients who presented with the same PFD but without pelvic floor hypertonicity. Postoperative patients with hypertonic pelvic floor were matched with patients who underwent surgery for the same PFD but did not develop pain. Risk factors were compared between groups. RESULTS: Ninety-five cases were matched; 71% had urogynecologic surgery as a possible trigger for myofascial pain. Most were post-menopausal. Overall, case patients were younger than controls (mean 54 vs 59, P = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression identified risk factors of younger age (OR 1.45, 95%CI 1.04-2.07), history of depression (OR 3, 95%CI 1.03-9.09), musculoskeletal spine injury (OR 4.32, 95%CI 1.01-21.26) and transobturator midurethral sling (OR 8.36, 95%CI 2.68-31.32). Retropubic midurethral sling was protective against pelvic floor hypertonicity (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.15-0.86). A clinical prediction model including depression, endometriosis, irritable bowel, spine injury and type of midurethral sling was developed to estimate the probability for myofascial pain after urogynecologic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Specific risk factors predispose women with PFD to chronic pelvic floor hypertonicity. Knowledge of these can help with patient counselling and choice of midurethral sling prior to PFD surgery.