Search

Objective: To assess the incidence of pelvic vein thrombosis (PVT) and outcomes of anticoagulant therapy for PVT in patients with pelvic venous disorders (PeVDs). Methods: This prospective cohort study included 588 female patients with PeVDs underwent clinical examination followed by duplex ultrasound of the pelvic veins in 2021-2023. Patients with PVT were administered with anticoagulant therapy in an outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins at a therapeutic dose. Results: PVT was detected in 7.6% of patients with PeVDs and was symptomatic in 28.8% of them. The majority of asymptomatic patients had thrombosis in only one of the parametrial veins (90.6%). Anticoagulant therapy resulted in the PVT symptoms relief in all patients within 10 days and recanalization of the pelvic veins in 1-3 months. Conclusion: In our study, PVT was diagnosed in 7.6% of patients with PeVDs. Anticoagulant therapy is effective and safe in resolving PVT symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study was aimed at assessing satisfaction with endovascular and surgical treatment, using a novel Likert scale procedure satisfaction instrument, in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) caused by the gonadal vein reflux. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 100 women with PeVD who underwent gonadal veins embolization with coils (GVE group, n = 71) or gonadal veins endoscopic resection (GVR group, n = 29) in 2012–2020. The GVE was performed under local anesthesia and sedation, and was left-sided in 61, right-sided in three, and bilateral in seven patients. The GVR was performed under general anesthesia through transperitoneal (n = 19) or retroperitoneal (n = 10) access with three access ports in both cases. The GVR was left-sided in 19, right-sided in one, and bilateral in nine patients. To assess satisfaction with GVE and GVR treatment of PeVD, patients were asked to evaluate statements related to their experience using a new Likert scale instrument. The responses for each item were compared between the groups at Day 7 (D7) and at Month 6 (M6) after the procedure, as was a summary score of all the responses at both time points. The summary score allowed categorization on a spectrum from "completely satisfied" to "completely dissatisfied." Results: The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at D7 showed that 80% and 100% of patients, accordingly, reported the overall summary satisfaction, 49% and 79% agreed with a complete pelvic pain relief by D7, 79% and 0% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort during the first postoperative day, 71% and 100% reported no need for analgesics to relief pain in the assess area, 80% and 100% reported fast return to daily activity, and 19.7% and 100% still experienced pelvic pain at D7 (pain in the GVR group was more severe and required the use of analgesics) (all p <.05). At the same time, 94% and 96% patients were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure at D7 (p = n.s.). The comparison between GVЕ and GVR groups at M6 showed that 100% of patients in both groups reported overall satisfaction with treatment (p = n.s.), 96% and 100% confirmed a complete pelvic pain relief by M6, 79% and 65% agreed with the absence of a significant discomfort after the procedure, 79% and 65% reported no need for analgesics, 83% and 100% reported about the return to daily activity (all p <.05), and 100% in both groups were satisfied with the aesthetic result of the procedure (p = n.s.). Conclusions: In patients with PeVD, both GVE and GVR are associated with a high, although not significantly different, overall treatment satisfaction in the long term and have advantages and disadvantages. GVE is associated with less severe post-procedural pain, while GVR provides faster relief of pelvic pain and a return to usual daily activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]