178 Table 7.3: Overview of study characteristics and main findings on leiomyomas, adenomyosis and endometriosis, congenital uterine anomalies and chronic endometritis. Author (year) Study design Topic Sampl e size Inclusion/ exclusion criteria Relevant patient demographics Relevant control demograp hics Method of measuring peristalsis Assessed parameters Moment of measurem ent Interventio n Outcome measure Results Bulletti et al. (1997) Casecontrol study Endometrio sis 16 patient s, 12 control s Patients: laparoscopic ally diagnosed endometriosi s. Controls: normal menstruating, parous, no spontaneous abortion or symptoms of endometriosi s Age 30.55 years +/- 4.82 Age 35.50 years +/- 7.72 Intrauterine pressure measureme nt with two probes, one near the fundus and one near the cervix. For 20 minutes Frequency, amplitude and basal pressure tone / / Abnormal contractility Fundus (patient vs control): frequency 28.40 +/- 8.96 vs 11.90 +/- 7.05 os/10min, amplitude 11.63 +/- 8.48 vs 6.41 +/- 4.29 mmHg, basal pressure tone 65.33 +/- 23.76 vs 25.28 +/- 19.94 mmHg. Bulletti et al. (2002) Controlle d prospecti ve casecontrol study Endometrio sis 22 patient s, 22 control s Both patients and controls: normal menstruation with unexplained fertility, nulliparous, no pelvic inflammatory disease, no severe adhesions and no adenomyosis . Patients: stage 2 or 3 endometriosi s. Controls: no evidence of Age 27.9 years +/- 5.5, 91% dysmenorrhea Age 28.1 years +/- 6.2, 27% dysmenorrh ea Intrauterine pressure measureme nt with two probes, starting one near the fundus and one near the cervix. For 20 minutes while pulling out Frequency, amplitude and basal pressure tone Cycle day 2-4 Laparoscopic treatment Uterine contractions, retrograde bleeding Patient vs control: frequency 22.73 +/- 5.66 vs 11.09 +/- 3.26 os/10min, amplitude 20.82 +/- 3.94 vs 6.77 +/- 2.83 mmHg, baseline uterine pressure 50.14 +/- 16.30 vs 24.68 +/- 6.14 mmHg
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw