Exploring the Changes in Pain Quality, Mechanical Allodynia, and Tactile Sensibility in Women With Persistent Postpartum Perineal Pain Treated With Somatosensory Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Persistent postpartum perineal pain (PPPP) is a prevalent condition characterized by provoked, unprovoked, or mixed pain. Somatosensory rehabilitation has shown significant effects in alleviating provoked pain, and, more specifically, mechanical allodynia, in other populations. Therefore, this method could be a promising approach for the treatment of PPPP. This study aims to describe changes in pain quality, mechanical allodynia, and tactile sensibility in women with PPPP treated with somatosensory rehabilitation. Methodology This retrospective case series describes the use of a somatosensory rehabilitation method applied to the treatment of PPPP. This intervention mainly involved tactile stimulation to treat pain, mechanical allodynia, and tactile sensibility. The study included individual outcomes of nine eligible patients treated with this method. Outcome measures included pain quality (Questionnaire de la douleur Saint-Antoine), surface (allodynography with a 15.0-g monofilament), and severity of mechanical allodynia (Rainbow Pain Scale), as well as tactile sensibility (pressure perception threshold, static two-point discrimination test, vibration perception threshold). Results All patients showed a reduction in pain quality score and resolution of mechanical allodynia in the vulva, defined by the criteria of no significant exacerbation of pain upon touch with a 15.0-g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Sensibility assessments revealed an improvement in tactile hypoesthesia in the area of the skin where allodynia was previously present. Conclusions This study shows promising results for the use of somatosensory rehabilitation in the treatment of PPPP. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to investigate its efficacy in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".