Article Text

Download PDFPDF

An evaluation of a dedicated chronic pelvic pain syndrome clinic in genitourinary medicine
  1. Megan Crofts1,
  2. Kate Mead2,
  3. Raj Persad3,
  4. Paddy Horner1,4
  1. 1 Bristol Sexual Health Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
  2. 2 Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, UK
  3. 3 Department of Urology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
  4. 4 School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paddy Horner, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK; Paddy.Horner{at}bristol.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We performed a retrospective evaluation of our male chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) clinic for patients attending between 1 August and 31 November 2010. Notes were available for 29 patients (out of 36 identified); two patients excluded as they had only attended clinic once. Patients were managed as detailed in the ‘How To’ article.1

Outcome was quantified by difference between scores at first and last clinic attendance (mean number of visits 6.5 (range 2–35; median 4)) using the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptoms Index (NIH-CPSI). Only patients who had attended the clinic on more than one occasion were included. A >25% reduction in score is considered significant. In total, 16 (59.3%) of the 27 patients found a >25% improvement in their symptoms. The mean NIH-CPSI score fell from 22.6 to 14.4 (p <0.01) (see table 1). Management strategies used are outlined in the ‘How To’ article.1

Table 1

Mean NIH CPSI score at first and last attendance at the CPPS clinic in 27 patients

In conclusion, men with CPPS attending departments of genitourinary medicine can be effectively managed using a biopsychosocial, holistic management strategy incorporating evidence-based pharmacotherapy.

Reference

Footnotes

  • Contributors MC was responsible for data collection and analysis, and is the lead author and writer. RP was responsible for intellectual contribution for urology. KM was responsible for data collection and analysis. PH was the lead in design conception and final draft approval.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles