MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PD20-09 ONOBOTULIUMTOXIN A VERSUS KENALOG FOR INTRAVAGINAL TRIGGER POINT INJECTIONS IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN

2019· article· en· W2941554526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie Bartley, Laura Nguyen, Deborah Hasenau, Jason Gilleran, Larry Sirls, Esther Han, Lauren Tenneyson, Kenneth M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriamcinolone acetonidePelvic painSalinePelvic floorAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Female (PD20)1 Apr 2019PD20-09 ONOBOTULIUMTOXIN A VERSUS KENALOG FOR INTRAVAGINAL TRIGGER POINT INJECTIONS IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN Jamie Bartley*, Laura Nguyen, Deborah Hasenau, Jason Gilleran, Larry Sirls, Esther Han, Lauren Tenneyson, and Kenneth Peters Jamie Bartley*Jamie Bartley* More articles by this author , Laura NguyenLaura Nguyen More articles by this author , Deborah HasenauDeborah Hasenau More articles by this author , Jason GilleranJason Gilleran More articles by this author , Larry SirlsLarry Sirls More articles by this author , Esther HanEsther Han More articles by this author , Lauren TenneysonLauren Tenneyson More articles by this author , and Kenneth PetersKenneth Peters More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555741.75359.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic pelvic pain in women is often due to pelvic muscle dysfunction and hypertonicity. In this study we compared outcomes of patients with chronic pelvic pain undergoing transvaginal trigger point injections (TPI) with triamcinolone (steroid) vs. onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). METHODS: A prospective double-blind study was conducted. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive in-office pelvic floor muscle injections with either a mixture of triamcinolone and ropivacaine followed by saline or injections of ropivacaine followed by a mixture of Botox 200 units and saline. Three bilateral injections were performed on each side of the pelvic floor. Statistical analysis compared the treatment groups at baseline and 1-month, 3-month and 6-month post-injection. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent TPI (11 steroid, 10 Botox). Primary diagnosis included myalgia, urinary system related symptoms, muscle spasms, and chronic pelvic pain. There was no statistical difference in baseline demographics or prior treatment. The median pre-injection pain score for the Steroid group was lower than the Botox group (5 (range: 4-7) vs 6 (range: 5-8), respectively; p= 0.015). At 1 month, there was no difference in median Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores between groups; Steroid: 5 (range 3-8, n=10) vs. Botox: 4.5 (range 2-7, n=9); p = 0.82. The change in median NRS scores between 1 month and baseline was no different between groups (Steroid: -1 (range -2 to +3) vs. Botox: -2 (range -4 to 0); p = 0.072. The numbers for 3 and 6 months were too small for comparison but are presented in Table 1. There is no difference between groups at baseline or at one month follow up on Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) measures or GRA measures. 90% (Steroid) and 89% (Botox) at 1month and 100% at 3 and 6 months (both groups) would recommend the same TPI to a friend. Regardless of the initial treatment received, approximately 40% of the patients from each group elected to receive steroid TPI at 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in NRS pain scores at 1 month in patients that received TPI with triamcinolone compared to Botox. Patients in both groups would recommend TPI equally to a friend. Source of Funding: Allergan and Beaumont, Department of Urology, Philanthropy Lansing, MI; Hamilton, Canada; Royal Oak, MI© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e380-e381 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jamie Bartley* More articles by this author Laura Nguyen More articles by this author Deborah Hasenau More articles by this author Jason Gilleran More articles by this author Larry Sirls More articles by this author Esther Han More articles by this author Lauren Tenneyson More articles by this author Kenneth Peters More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207