High Catastrophizing in Subjects With Painful Mesh Complications Leads to Worse Outcomes

'I have no life and neither do the ones watching me suffer': women's experiences of transvaginal mesh implant surgery

Objective: Many women are affected by pelvic floor disorders, such as stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In recent years, these disorders have been treated with transvaginal mesh implant surgeries involving the vaginal insertion of woven netting. We explored women's experiences of transvaginal mesh implant surgery through a biopsychosocial lens. Design: We analysed women's submissions to an Australian Parliament Senate Inquiry on transvaginal mesh implant surgery using thematic analysis. Main Outcome Methods: One-hundred and fifty-three publicly available submissions detailing women's experiences of transvaginal mesh implant surgery to an Australian Parliament Senate Inquiry were analysed. Adverse and positive accounts were eligible for inclusion. Results: We generated nine themes in three categories relating to the Biopsychosocial Model: Physical Health - comprising three themes; Psychological Health - comprising two themes; and Social Wellbeing - comprising four themes. Physical, psychological and social experiences interacted, resulting in reduced quality of life for women. Conclusion: Most women who made submissions to an Australian government inquiry about transvaginal mesh implant surgery described devastating impacts on physical, psychological, and social wellbeing. We provide recommendations to guide psychologists in assisting women with adverse transvaginal mesh-related outcomes. Further research should explore women's long-term experiences of the various transvaginal mesh procedures.

Pain Catastrophizing: Controversies, Misconceptions and Future Directions

Recent reports have pointed to problems with the term "pain catastrophizing." Critiques of the term pain catastrophizing have come from several sources including individuals with chronic pain, advocates for individuals with chronic pain, and pain scholars. Reports indicate that the term has been used to dismiss the medical basis of pain complaints, to question the authenticity of pain complaints, and to blame individuals with pain for their pain condition. In this paper, we advance the position that the problems prompting calls to rename the construct of pain catastrophizing have little to do with the term, and as such, changing the term will do little to solve these problems. We argue that continued calls for changing or deleting the term pain catastrophizing will only divert attention away from some fundamental flaws in how individuals with pain conditions are assessed and treated. Some of these fundamental flaws have their roots in the inadequate training of health and allied health professionals in evidence-based models of pain, in the use of psychological assessment and intervention tools for the clinical management of pain, and in gender equity and antiracism. Critiques that pain scholars have leveled against the defining, operational, and conceptual bases of pain catastrophizing are also addressed. Arguments for reconceptualizing pain catastrophizing as a worry-related construct are discussed. Recommendations are made for remediation of the problems that have contributed to calls to rename the term pain catastrophizing. PERSPECTIVE: The issues prompting calls to rename the construct of pain catastrophizing have their roots in fundamental flaws in how individuals with pain are assessed and treated. Efforts to address these problems will require more than a simple change in terminology.

Pain Catastrophizing and Impact on Pelvic Floor Surgery Experience

IMPORTANCE

Understanding patients' perceptions of symptoms and outcomes of urogynecologic surgery is essential for providing high-quality care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess association of pain catastrophizing with pelvic floor symptom distress and impact, postoperative pain, and voiding trial in patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Individuals whose self-identified gender was female and were undergoing surgery March 2020-December 2021 were included. Participants completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (range 0-52), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire preoperatively. Pain catastrophizing was score ≥30 and describes the tendency to magnify the overall threat of pain. Voiding trial failure was inability to void ≥2/3 of instilled volume (≤300 mL). The association between pain catastrophizing and symptom distress and impact was assessed with linear regression. A P < 0.05 is significant.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty patients were included (mean age, 60 years, 87% White). Forty-six of 320 participants (14%) had a pain catastrophizing score ≥30. The pain catastrophizing group had higher body mass index (33 ± 12 vs 29 ± 5), more benzodiazepine use (26% vs 12%), greater symptom distress (154 ± 58 vs 108 ± 60), and greater urogenital (59 ± 29 vs 47 ± 28), colorectal (42 ± 24 vs 26 ± 23), and prolapse (54 ± 24 vs 36 ± 24) subscale scores, all P ≤ 0.02. The pain catastrophizing group had greater impact (153 ± 72 vs 72 ± 64, P < 0.01) and urogenital (60 ± 29 vs 34 ± 28), colorectal (36 ± 33 vs 16 ± 26), and prolapse (57 ± 32 vs 22 ± 27) subscale scores, P < 0.01. Associations remained controlling for confounders ( P < 0.01). The pain catastrophizing group had higher 10-point pain scores (8 vs 6, P < 0.01) and was more likely to report pain at 2 weeks (59% vs 20%, P < 0.01) and 3 months (25% vs 6%, P = 0.01). Voiding trial failure did not differ (26% vs 28%, P = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain catastrophizing is associated with greater pelvic floor symptom distress and impact and postoperative pain but not voiding trial failure.

How is pain associated with pelvic mesh implants measured? Refinement of the construct and a scoping review of current assessment tools

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for the management of pain related to pelvic mesh implants are still under development. One limitation that has impeded progress in this area is that mesh-related pain has not been consistently defined or measured. Here, we reviewed the ways in which pain associated with pelvic mesh implants has been measured, and mapped the ways in which these existing measures capture the construct.

METHODS

First, we reviewed existing accounts of the pain associated with pelvic mesh implants to develop a multifaceted construct definition, which includes aspects related to pain intensity, timing, body location, phenomenological qualities, impact/interference with daily living, and patient expectations and beliefs. Next, we reviewed the ways that the construct has been measured in the extant literature.

RESULTS

Within 333 eligible studies, 28 different assessments of pain associated with pelvic mesh were identified, and 61% of studies reported using more than one measurement tool. Questionnaire measures included measures designed to assess urological and/or pelvic symptoms, generic measures and unvalidated measures. We did not identify any validated questionnaire measures designed to assess pain associated with pelvic mesh implants. The phenomenological, location, and expectation/belief components of the construct were not captured well by the identified questionnaire measures, and there is no evidence that any of the identified measures have appropriate psychometric properties for the assessment of pain related to pelvic mesh implants.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend further qualitative research regarding women's experiences of pelvic mesh-related pain assessment, and the development of a condition-specific patient reported outcome measure.

Chronic Pelvic Pain Patients Demonstrate Higher Catastrophizing in Association with Pelvic Symptoms and Comorbid Pain Diagnoses

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the relationship between catastrophization and pelvic pain symptomatology in chronic pelvic pain (CPP) patients using standardized questionnaires.

METHODS

CPP patients completed standardized questionnaires which included: genitourinary pain index, patient health questionnaire for anxiety and depression, interstitial cystitis symptom index, and pelvic floor distress inventory. Scores and number of comorbidities were compared to Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) by linear regression. Patients categorized as "extreme catastrophizing" (PCS score ≥30), traditionally associated with worse outcomes in the pain literature [10-11], were also analyzed separately.

RESULTS

184 patients were included (mean age 42 years, N = 23 male). Higher number of pain comorbidities was correlated to PCS (P < .001) as well as higher scores on all standardized questionnaires (P < .001). Forty-four percent of patients (81/184) were extreme catastrophizers and scored significantly worse on all standardized measures when compared to nonextreme catastrophizers. Mean scores for nonextreme vs extreme catastrophizers were: genitourinary pain index (25.7 ± 6.8 vs 32.7 ± 6.5, P < .001), interstitial cystitis symptom index (6.5 ± 4.7 vs 9.4 ± 5.8, P < .001), pelvic floor distress inventory (88.8 ± 52 vs 121.1 ± 62.8, P < .001), patient health questionnaire anxiety (1.7 ± 2.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.1, P < .001), and depression (1.4 ± 1.6 vs 3.3 ± 2.0, P < .001). Number of comorbidities was not significant predictor of extreme catastrophizing (3.5 vs 3.7 P = .22).

CONCLUSION

Higher scores on standardized questionnaires and more comorbidities was associated with more catastrophizing in CPP patients. This study highlights the significance of standardized questionnaires, including the PCS, to predict which patients may be extreme catastrophizers and thus subject to worse outcomes. Future studies are needed to look at catastrophization as a potentially modifiable and treatable risk factor.