Surgical approaches for pudendal nerve entrapment: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundPudendal nerve entrapment (PNE) is an underdiagnosed condition affecting a spectrum of pelvic functions, primarily pain, as outlined by Nantes diagnostic criteria. Although numerous surgical decompression techniques are available for its management, consensus on efficacy and safety is lacking. This study conducts a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and complication rates of the main surgical decompression techniques.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed®, Embase®, Web of Science®, and ClinicalTrails.gov® on 19th of April 2023. Initial screening involved title and abstract evaluation, with subsequent retrieval and assessment of abstracts and full-text articles. Studies assessing pain outcomes before and after surgical release of the pudendal nerve were included. Studies without full-text, focusing on diagnostic methods or with outcomes relating solely to LUTS, digestive symptoms, or sexual dysfunction, were excluded. Risk of bias assessement was conducted using the National Institute of Health (NIH) Study Quality Assessment tool. Studies were categorized based on three surgical techniques: perineal, transgluteal, and laparoscopic transperitoneal. Random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analysis were used. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to investigate the influence of covariates on the observed outcomes.

resultsNineteen studies, comprising 810 patients, were included. The overall significant pain relief rate across all techniques was estimated at 0.67 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.78) with considerable heterogeneity (I

conclusionWhile comparing surgical techniques is challenging, this meta-analysis highlights important outcome differences. The laparoscopic technique appears most promising for pain improvement. However, the study also emphasizes the need for further robust, long-term research due to significant heterogeneity across studies and prevelent risk of bias. PROSPERO database: CRD42023496564.