Physical Modalities for the Treatment of Localized Provoked Vulvodynia: A Scoping Review of the Literature from 2010 to 2023

Introduction

Localized provoked vulvodynia (LPV) is a prevalent sexual health condition with significant negative impacts on quality of life. There is a lack of consensus regarding effective management.

Methods

We used Arksey and O'Malley's five-step method to identify, collate, and evaluate literature published between 2010 and 2023. The scoping review investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in the management of LPV. The aim of this paper is to map the literature on the efficacy or effectiveness of physical interventions.

Results

The review produced 19 primary studies of physical interventions for LPV. These include acupuncture, laser therapy, physiotherapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-intensity shockwave therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation, and vestibulectomy.

Conclusion

Published studies that investigated a range of physical treatments for LPV showed some positive effects, except for transcranial direct-current stimulation. The remaining modalities demonstrated improved sexual pain and treatment satisfaction, when measured. Findings were mixed for non-sexual pain. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding other outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to conduct larger, high-quality studies that sample more diverse patient populations and use patient-oriented outcomes to assess effectiveness of physical modalities.

Multimodal and Interdisciplinary Interventions for the Treatment of Localized Provoked Vulvodynia: A Scoping Review of the Literature from 2010 to 2023

Introduction

Localized provoked vulvodynia (LPV) is a chronic condition characterized by pain in the vulvar vestibule, which can be provoked by pressure or touch and which is not tied to a clear underlying cause. Research into the etiology of and most appropriate treatment strategy for LPV is still limited.

Methods

Using Arksey and O'Malley's model for scoping reviews, we evaluated the research question: what is the current evidence regarding the efficacy/effectiveness of multimodal or interdisciplinary interventions for the treatment of LPV? We collated and analyzed articles from 2010 to 2023 to capture the current research landscape.

Results

Our review identified 27 studies, which either compared treatments between classes (eg pharmacologic versus psychologic modalities) or described interdisciplinary treatment programs. We identify several trends in the literature. First, outcome measures are inconsistent between studies, often unvalidated, and may not adequately mirror patient concerns. Second, the absence of appropriate comparator groups in many studies restricts providers' ability to appraise which treatments may be most efficacious. Third, selection bias and demographic homogeneity limit generalizability. Finally, we highlight the need for head-to-head trials of vestibulectomy with other treatments considered first line for vulvodynia management.

Conclusion

There is insufficient evidence to suggest the superiority of one treatment modality for LPV relative to others or to recommend a particular interdisciplinary management strategy. Future research should use a head-to-head design where sham control is impossible, incorporate patient-centered outcome measures, and investigate impacts of treatment among diverse samples of LPV patients.

Guideline No. 445: Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of chronic pelvic pain in females.

TARGET POPULATION

This guideline is specific to pelvic pain in adolescent and adult females and excluded literature that looked at pelvic pain in males. It also did not address genital pain.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

The intent is to benefit patients with chronic pelvic pain by providing an evidence-based approach to management. Access to certain interventions such as physiotherapy and psychological treatments, and to interdisciplinary care overall, may be limited by costs and service availability.

EVIDENCE

Medline and the Cochrane Database from 1990 to 2020 were searched for articles in English on subjects related to chronic pelvic pain, including diagnosis, overlapping pain conditions, central sensitization, management, medications, surgery, physiotherapy, psychological therapies, alternative and complementary therapies, and multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary care. The committee reviewed the literature and available data and used a consensus approach to develop recommendations. Only articles in English and pertaining to female subjects were included.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Family physicians, gynaecologists, urologists, pain specialists, physiotherapists, and mental health professionals.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Management of chronic pelvic pain should consider multifactorial contributors, including underlying central sensitization/nociplastic pain, and employ an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial approach that includes pain education, physiotherapy, and psychological & medical treatments.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Pharmacological Treatments for Localized Provoked Vulvodynia: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Localized provoked vulvodynia (LPV) is a chronic pain condition without an identifiable cause that is localized to a portion of the vulva and provoked by pressure or touch. LPV is a commonly occurring but poorly understood condition lacking consensus on management.

Method

This scoping review used Arksey and O'Malley's approach to identify and evaluate literature published between 2010 and 2023 that addressed the question: What is the current evidence on the efficacy or effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in the management of LPV?

Results

This review evaluated 18 papers reporting on the efficacy or effectiveness of oral, topical, and injectable medications. Seven of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Oral gabapentin and oral desipramine showed some improvement in sexual function compared to placebo. Small sample sizes and methodological issues limited confidence in interpreting findings. Pain was reduced in descriptive studies of tricyclic antidepressants, milnacipran, injectable anesthetics, and botulinum toxin. Where pain did not improve with treatment, some oral medications improved participants' mood and sexual function. Some topical agents may be effective in reducing peripherally mediated neuropathic pain. Botulinum toxin was the most well-studied injectable but yielded mixed outcomes related to pain, quality of life, and sexual function.

Conclusion

There is a lack of convincing evidence to draw conclusions about the efficacy or effectiveness of pharmacological therapies for LPV. The breadth of therapies for treating LPV warrants the development of evidence-based, consensus guidelines for measuring treatment outcomes and improving comparisons across studies. Recommendations for research include addressing methodological shortcomings and diversifying the participant pool to increase the generalizability of findings.

The impact of rurality on vulvodynia diagnosis and management: Primary care provider and patient perspectives

Objective

The objective of this study was to better understand how rurality impacts the knowledge, diagnosis and management of vulvodynia by primary care providers (PCPs) practising in the geographically disparate province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Design

This was a qualitative case study using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with PCPs, compared with semi-structured focus groups and interviews with vulvodynia patients conducted in a previous study phase.

Results

Ten family physicians and 6 nurse practitioners participated. Over half had baseline knowledge that vulvodynia has a relatively high prevalence, but most underestimated the likelihood they would see a patient with vulvodynia in their practice. Three barriers to discussing and managing vulvodynia emerged: (1) discomfort initiating sexual/vulvar health conversations; (2) concerns about protecting patient privacy and confidentiality; and (3) time constraints and building therapeutic relationships. These issues were largely corroborated by previous findings with vulvodynia patients. Rural-informed solutions might include: (1) supporting increased education in vulvodynia and sexual health more broadly, including funding to attend continuing professional education and developing more clinical tools; (2) following practice guidelines regarding standardised initiation of sexual health conversations; (3) incentivising retention of rural providers and extending appointment times by reconsidering fee-for-service structures; and (4) researching a tailored vulvodynia toolkit and the potential advantage of mobile health units.

Conclusion

Rurality exacerbates common concerns in the identification and management of vulvodynia. Acting on recommended solutions may address the impact of rurality on the provision of timely care for those experiencing vulvodynia and other sexual health concerns.

Vulvodynia Viewed From a Disease Prevention Framework: Insights From Patient Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Persons with vulvodynia (a chronic vulvar pain condition) suffer many barriers to diagnosis and treatment, several of which may be exacerbated by the sociocultural and geographical context in which they live.

AIM

We drew on the experiences of patients with vulvodynia who were living in small urban and rural communities to learn what they perceived as the major barriers to diagnosis and treatment as well as to probe for possible solutions.

METHODS

For this qualitative case study, we conducted 3 focus groups with a total of 10 participants, drawn from patients seen at our academic tertiary referral center, with a goal of understanding their lived experience with vulvodynia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The patient dialogue was coded into themes and temporally grouped to illustrate struggles and victories in diagnosis and treatment.

RESULTS

Participants confirmed that healthcare provider knowledge and attitudes as well as system challenges (specialist and allied healthcare provider availability) are major barriers to timely diagnosis. Of novel interest are other factors that exacerbate distress and delay diagnosis such as patients' inadequate knowledge of sexual functioning and sociocultural messages regarding "normal" sexual activity. Our work suggests that a disease prevention framework that includes comprehensive sexual education before or at the onset of sexual activity may be of benefit in reducing the burden of vulvodynia when added to strategies to increase healthcare provider knowledge and improve access to effective treatments.

CONCLUSION

While healthcare provider knowledge and attitudes are often at the forefront of barriers to diagnosis, our study suggests that to minimize patient distress and expedite diagnosis, resources must also be directed to promoting comprehensive sexual health education. Webber V, Miller ME, Gustafson DL, et al. Vulvodynia Viewed From a Disease Prevention Framework: Insights From Patient Perspectives. Sex Med 2020;8:757-766.

No. 279-Female Sexual Health Consensus Clinical Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To establish national guidelines for the assessment of women's sexual health concerns and the provision of sexual health care for women.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from May to October 2010, using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., sexuality, "sexual dysfunction," "physiological," dyspareunia) and key words (e.g., sexual dysfunction, sex therapy, anorgasmia). Results were restricted, where possible, to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to December 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. Each article was screened for relevance and the full text acquired if determined to be relevant. The evidence obtained was reviewed and evaluated by the members of the Expert Workgroup established by The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

VALUES

The quality of evidence was evaluated and recommendations made using the use of criteria described by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table).

Diagnosis of adverse events after hysterectomy with postoperative self-care web applications: A pilot study

Increased pressures from multiple sources are leading to earlier patient discharge following surgery. Our objective was to test the feasibility of self-care web applications to inform women if, when, and where to seek help for symptoms after hysterectomy. We asked 31 women recovering at home after hysterectomy at two centers to sign into a website on a schedule. For each session, the website informed them about normal postoperative symptoms and prompted them to complete an interactive symptom questionnaire that provided detailed information on flagged responses. We interviewed eight women who experienced an adverse event. Six of these women had used the web application regularly, each indicating they used the information to guide them in seeking care for their complications. These data support that self-care applications may empower patients to manage their own care and present to appropriate health care providers and venues when they experience abnormal symptoms.

A pilot feasibility multicenter study of patients after excision of endometriosis

A multicenter prospective study evaluating the management of endometriosis comparing excision versus ablation is needed using primary outcomes other than chronic pelvic pain.

Objective:

To serve as a pilot feasibility study for a randomized study of excision versus ablation in the treatment of endometriosis by (1) estimating the magnitude of change in symptoms after excision only at multiple referral centers and (2) determining the proportion of women willing to participate in a randomized trial.

Methods:

We performed a multicenter prospective study of women undergoing excision for endometriosis (Canadian Task Force class II-3) at Duke University Center for Endometriosis Research & Treatment (currently the Saint Louis University Center for Endometriosis), Center for Endometriosis Care, Northshore University Health System, Memorial University (Canada), and Florida Hospital. The study comprised 100 female patients, aged 18 to 55 years, with endometriosis-suspected pelvic pain. The intervention was laparoscopic excision only of the abnormal peritoneum suspicious for endometriosis. The main outcome measures were quality of life, pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and bowel and bladder symptoms.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was 8.5 months. Excision of endometriosis showed a significant reduction in all pain scores except bowel symptoms, as well as significant improvement in quality of life. Of the patients, 84% were willing to participate in a randomized study.

Conclusions:

Quality of life is a needed primary outcome for any randomized study comparing excision versus ablation. A multicenter comparative trial is feasible, although quality assurance would have to be addressed. Patients were willing to be randomized even at surgical referral centers.