4.7 Article

A pilot study to evaluate the clinical relevance of endometriosis-associated nerve fibers in peritoneal endometriotic lesions

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 92, 期 6, 页码 1856-1861

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.006

关键词

Endometriosis; sensory nerve fibers; pelvic pain; dysmenorrhea; pain conduction; pathophysiology of endometriosis-related pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the clinical relevance of endometriosis-associated nerve fibers in the development of endometriosis-associated symptoms. Design: Prospective nonrandomized study. Setting: University hospital endometriosis center. Patient(s): Fifty-one premenopausal patients underwent surgical laparoscopy because of chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, or for ovarian cysts. Endometriosis was diagnosed in 44 patients. Intervention(s): The preoperative and postoperative pain scores were determined using a standardized questionnaire with a visual analogue scale from 1-10. Patients with peritoneal endometriosis were divided into two groups depending on their preoperative pain score: group A with a pain score of at least 3 or more and group B with a pain score of 2 or less. Patients without peritoneal endometriosis were classified as group C and patients without endometriosis were classified as group D. Immunohistochemical analysis of neurofilament and protein gene product 9.5 were used for nerve fiber detection. Occurrence of endometriosis-associated nerve fibers was correlated with the severity of pelvic pain and/or dysmenorrhea. Result(s): Peritoneal endometriosis-associated nerve fibers were found significantly more frequently in group A than in group B (82.6% vs. 33.3%). Conclusion(s): The present study suggests that the presence of endometriosis-associated nerve fibers in the peritoneum is important for the development of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;92:1856-61. (C)2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据