These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of combined hormonal vaginal ring and low dose combined oral hormonal pill for the treatment of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain: a randomised trial.
    Author: Priya K, Rajaram S, Goel N.
    Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2016 Dec; 207():141-146. PubMed ID: 27863271.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of combined hormonal vaginal ring with combined oral hormonal pill in women with idiopathic chronic pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised prospective interventional trial conducted in 60 women with idiopathic chronic pelvic pain. Women were randomised into two groups of 30 each. In each group, treatment was given for 84 days using either combined vaginal ring or combined oral hormonal pill. Hormonal vaginal ring releases 15mcg of ethinyl estradiol and 120mcg of the etonogestrel per day while the hormonal pill contained 30mcg of ethinyl estradiol and 150mcg of levonorgestrel. There was no ring or pill free week. After every 28 days, pain relief was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS), and verbal rating score (VRS) calculated by summing dysmenorrhea, non-cyclic pelvic pain (NCCP) and deep dyspareunia scores. Side effects, compliance, satisfaction, and user acceptability were also measured. Data was analyzed using various parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Reduction in mean VAS score at end of treatment in ring group was 6.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.45-7.01; p<0.001) as compared to 5.53 in pill group (95% CI, 4.83-6.23; p<0.001). Reduction in mean VRS score was 5.63 in ring users (95% CI, 4.84-6.42; p<0.001) versus 4.36 in pill users (95% CI, 3.63-5.10; p<0.001). A significantly higher persistent relief in NCPP score was observed in vaginal ring group as compared to oral pill group at end of one month after stopping treatment. Compliance, satisfaction, and user acceptability were higher in ring users (80%) than pill users (70%) and a higher incidence of nausea was seen in pill group. CONCLUSION: Present study demonstrates for first time that both vaginal and oral hormonal therapy are effective in treatment of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain and vaginal ring may be a better choice with higher satisfaction rate and fewer side effects.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]