Relationships of Pelvic Vein Diameter and Reflux with Clinical Manifestations of Pelvic Venous Disorder

The causes of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) are not completely understood. Various authors consider dilation of pelvic veins (PeVs) and pelvic venous reflux (PVR) as the main mechanisms underlying symptomatic forms of PeVD. The aim of this study was to asse...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sergey Gavrilov, Anatoly Karalkin, Nadezhda Mishakina, Oksana Efremova, Anastasia Grishenkova
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2022-01-01
Series:Diagnostics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/12/1/145
Description
Summary:The causes of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in patients with pelvic venous disorder (PeVD) are not completely understood. Various authors consider dilation of pelvic veins (PeVs) and pelvic venous reflux (PVR) as the main mechanisms underlying symptomatic forms of PeVD. The aim of this study was to assess relationships of pelvic vein dilation and PVR with clinical manifestations of PeVD. This non-randomized comparative cohort study included 80 female patients with PeVD who were allocated into two groups with symptomatic (n = 42) and asymptomatic (n = 38) forms of the disease. All patients underwent duplex scanning and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of PeVs with in vivo labeled red blood cells (RBCs). The PeV diameters, the presence, duration and pattern of PVR in the pelvic veins, as well as the coefficient of pelvic venous congestion (C<sub>PVC</sub>) were assessed. Two groups did not differ significantly in pelvic vein diameters (gonadal veins (GVs): 7.7 ± 1.3 vs. 8.5 ± 0.5 mm; parametrial veins (PVs): 9.8 ± 0.9 vs. 9.5 ± 0.9 mm; and uterine veins (UVs): 5.6 ± 0.2 vs. 5.5 ± 0.6 mm). Despite this, C<sub>PVC</sub> was significantly higher in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (1.9 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.2, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.008). Symptomatic patients had type II or III PVR, while asymptomatic patients had type I PVR. The reflux duration was found to be significantly greater in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients (median and interquartile range: 4.0 [3.0; 5.0] vs. 1.0 [0; 2.0] s for GVs, <i>p</i> = 0.008; 4.0 [3.0; 5.0] vs. 1.1 [1.0; 2.0] s for PVs, <i>p</i> = 0.007; and 2.0 [2.0; 3.0] vs. 1.0 [1.0; 2.0] s for UVs, <i>p</i> = 0.04). Linear correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship (Pearson’s r = 0.78; <i>p</i> = 0.007) of CPP with the PVR duration but not with vein diameter. The grade of PeV dilation may not be a determining factor in CPP development in patients with PeVD. The presence and duration of reflux in the pelvic veins were found to be predictors of the development of symptomatic PeVD.
ISSN:2075-4418