No abstract

BACKGROUND Secondary to the complex care, involved specialty providers, and various etiologies, chronic pelvic pain patients do not receive holistic care. OBJECTIVE To compare our general and neuromodulation cohorts based on referrals, diagnosis, and therapy and describe our neuromodulation patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary team was established at our center. The intake coordinator assessed demographics and facilitated care of enrolled patients. Outcomes were compared using minimal clinical important difference of current Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) between patients with neuropathic pain who received neuromodulation and those who did not. The neuromodulation cohort completed outcome metrics at baseline and recent follow-up, including NRS score (best, worst, and current), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale. RESULTS Over 7 yr, 233 patients were referred to our consortium and 153 were enrolled. A total of 55 patients had neuropathic pain and 44 of those were managed medically. Eleven underwent neuromodulation. A total of 45.5% patients of the neuromodulation cohort were classified as responders by minimal clinically important difference compared to 26.6% responders in the control cohort at most recent follow-up (median 25 and 33 mo, respectively). Outcome measures revealed improvement in NRS at worst (P = .007) and best (P = .025), ODI (P = .014), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale Rumination (P = .043). CONCLUSION Eleven percent of patients were offered neuromodulation. There were more responders in the neuromodulation cohort than the conservatively managed neuropathic pain cohort. Neuromodulation patients showed significant improvement at 29 mo in NRS best and worst pain, disability, and rumination. We share our algorithm for patient management.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract