Pudendal block for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain: A randomized control trial

Joris Ramstein, Danielle Markle Price, A Saleh, Felicia Lane
In: Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders · 2025 · vol. 17(4) , pp. 184–191 · doi:10.1177/22840265251340366 · W4410840856
article OA: hybrid CC0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This randomized trial found that pudendal nerve blocks with local anesthetic and steroid did not significantly improve pain or quality of life compared to placebo when added to pelvic floor physical therapy for chronic pelvic pain.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by gpt-5.6-luna, 2026-08-12 · read from full text ⓘ

This randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluated pudendal nerve block for chronic pelvic pain in 34 participants, including 22 receiving treatment and 12 receiving placebo, with pain, pelvic tenderness, vaginal electromyography, pelvic-floor questionnaires, psychological measures, and sexual-function scores assessed at baseline and 8 weeks. Both groups showed significant improvement over time in visual-analog pain scores, tenderness, selected pelvic-floor measures, and several questionnaires, but there were no significant treatment-by-time differences indicating a specific benefit of pudendal block over placebo; the provided text does not report further methodological limitations. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects up to 40% of reproductive-age women and often involves myofascial pelvic pain syndrome (MPPS), a musculoskeletal condition associated with pelvic floor dysfunction. Effective treatment options are limited, and pudendal nerve blocks have been proposed as an adjunct to pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of adding pudendal nerve blocks to PFPT on pain reduction and quality of life in patients with MPPS. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial enrolled women with MPPS referred for PFPT. Participants were randomized to receive either pudendal nerve blocks with local anesthetic and steroid or placebo saline injections weekly for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included muscle tenderness, pelvic floor strength, and quality-of-life metrics (PFDI, PFIQ, SF-36, and FSFI). Statistical analyses included paired t -tests and mixed-model analysis for repeated measures. Results: Both groups experienced significant improvements in VAS scores ( p < 0.001) and muscle tenderness ( p = 0.003), with no significant differences between the groups ( p = 0.7, p = 0.15). As pain and tenderness decreased, patients reported increased pelvic floor strength, reduced distress, and improved quality of life by week 8. Conclusions: While pudendal blocks did not significantly enhance outcomes over placebo injections, PFPT alone likely drove the observed improvements in pain and quality of life. Future studies with larger sample sizes and additional comparison groups are needed to explore the potential role of adjunctive therapies in managing MPPS.
Full text 3,636 characters · extracted from oa-html · 8 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Introduction:

Methods

Results:

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Trial design Participants Interventions Outcomes Sample size Randomization and blinding Statistical methods

Results

| Demographics & Comorbidities | Treatment (N = 22) | Placebo (N = 12) | Total (N = 34) | |---|---|---|---| | Age (mean, range) (p = 0.975) | 46 (22–66) | 47 (28–69) | 46 (22–69) | | Race/ethnicity (p = 0.5) | ||| | Caucasian | 17 (77%) | 8 (67%) | 25 (73%) | | Black | 2 (9%) | 1 (8%) | 3 (9%) | | Hispanic | 2 (9%) | 2 (17%) | 4 (12%) | | Asian | 1 (5%) | 1 (8%) | 2 (6%) | | Primary pelvic pain etiology | ||| | Genitourinary | 3 (14%) | 1 (8%) | 4 (12%) | | Inflammatory | 7 (32%) | 3 (25%) | 10 (29%) | | Neurologic | 2 (9%) | 1 (8%) | 3 (9%) | | Levator ani spasms | 4 (18%) | 2 (17%) | 6 (18%) | | Trauma | 2 (9%) | 2 (17%) | 4 (12%) | | Vulvodynia | 3 (14%) | 2 (17%) | 5 (15%) | | Unidentified | 1 (5%) | 1 (8%) | 2 (6%) | | Prior pelvic surgery | 15 (68%) | 7 (58%) | 22 (64%) | | Pain Questionnaires | Pudendal block | Placebo | p-Value | |||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Baseline | Week 8 | Baseline | Week 8 | Treatment | Time | Time × treatment | | | VAS | 7.1 ± 0.6 | 3.7 ± 0.8 | 6.4 ± 0.8 | 3.6 ± 1.1 | 0.70 | <0.001 | 0.73 | | Tenderness score | 3.5 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 3.2 ± 0.2 | 2.3 ± 16 | 0.15 | 0.003 | 0.83 | | Vaginal EMG | Pudendal block | Placebo | p-Value | |||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Baseline | Week 8 | Baseline | Week 8 | Treatment | Time | Time × treatment | | | EMG-rest (uV) | 2.2 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.5 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 0.86 | | EMG-short (uV) | 13.7 ± 1.8 | 18.6 ± 2.5 | 13.8 ± 0.2 | 14.9 ± 3.5 | 0.62 | 0.04 | 0.18 | | Oxford | 2.8 ± 0.3 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 0.76 | 0.003 | 0.81 | | Questionnaires | Pudendal block | Placebo | p-Value | |||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Baseline | Week 8 | Baseline | Week 8 | Treatment | Time | Time × treatment | | | PFDI | 87 ± 16 | 79 ± 17 | 100 ± 18 | 77 ± 20 | 0.82 | 0.04 | 0.26 | | PFIQ | 86 ± 20 | 69 ± 14 | 100 ± 23 | 68 ± 16 | 0.80 | 0.02 | 0.44 | | PCS | 39 ± 3 | 40 ± 3 | 41 ± 4 | 42 ± 4 | 0.67 | 0.35 | 0.99 | | MCS | 36 ± 3 | 42 ± 3 | 35 ± 4 | 45 ± 4 | 0.79 | <0.001 | 0.24 | | FSFI | 14 ± 3 | 14 ± 3 | 10 ± 4 | 13 ± 4 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.33 |

Discussion

Declaration of conflicting interests Funding ORCID iDs Footnotes Data availability statement

References

Cite Cite Cite Download to reference manager If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice Information, rights and permissions Information Published In

Keywords

Data availability statement Article versions Authors Metrics and citations Metrics Journals metrics This article was published in Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders. View All Journal MetricsPublication usage* Total views and downloads: 785 *Publication usage tracking started in December 2016 Publications citing this one Receive email alerts when this publication is cited Web of Science: 0 Crossref: There are no citing articles to show. Figures and tables Figures & Media Tables View Options View options PDF/EPUB View PDF/EPUBAccess options If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below: loading institutional access options Alternatively, view purchase options below: Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content. Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Outcome instruments

VAS-pain

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (4)

References (41)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK