Delphi consensus on diagnostic and therapeutic pathways for pelvic venous disorders - A multidisciplinary algorithm.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Domenico Baccellieri, Antonio Basile, Alessandro Arena, Annarita Dapoto, Alessandra De Cicco Nardone, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Lorenza Driul, Roberto Iezzi, Liliana Mereu, Francesco Modestino, Vincenzo Ardita, Pier Luigi Antignani
{"title":"Delphi consensus on diagnostic and therapeutic pathways for pelvic venous disorders - A multidisciplinary algorithm.","authors":"Domenico Baccellieri, Antonio Basile, Alessandro Arena, Annarita Dapoto, Alessandra De Cicco Nardone, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Lorenza Driul, Roberto Iezzi, Liliana Mereu, Francesco Modestino, Vincenzo Ardita, Pier Luigi Antignani","doi":"10.1024/0301-1526/a001267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) are associated with chronic pelvic pain and varicose veins due to venous insufficiency and pooling in the pelvis. Despite increasing interest, there is a lack of widely accepted diagnostic algorithms and validated criteria, which complicates diagnosis and management. This study aimed to develop and validate a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for PeVD using expert consensus. <i>Materials and methods:</i> An independent Advisory Board (AB) of 11 Italian specialists (gynaecologist, radiologists, vascular surgeons, and angiologists) was convened. A literature review informed the development of a draft algorithm. Three Delphi survey rounds were conducted, with online and in-person discussions, and a consensus threshold set at ≥70%. <i>Results:</i> All 11 AB members completed the first two survey rounds, and eight completed the third. The median number of diagnosed and treated PeVD cases per expert was 20 and 12 per year, respectively. The group agreed on classifying PeVD into Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS) and compressive/obstructive syndromes. Endovascular therapy was recognised as standard of care: pelvic embolisation for PCS, stenting for obstructive lesions, and combined approaches when both are present. Clinical success was defined as subjective symptom improvement assessed 3-6 months post-procedure. Treatment failure warranted re-evaluation and possible reintervention. Surgical treatment was considered only when conservative and endovascular options failed (37.5% agree, 50% neutral). <i>Conclusions:</i> This Delphi-based consensus produced a validated, multidisciplinary algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of PeVD. It highlights the need for standardised clinical pathways, but further validation by a broader expert community is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":23528,"journal":{"name":"Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vasa-european Journal of Vascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526/a001267","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) are associated with chronic pelvic pain and varicose veins due to venous insufficiency and pooling in the pelvis. Despite increasing interest, there is a lack of widely accepted diagnostic algorithms and validated criteria, which complicates diagnosis and management. This study aimed to develop and validate a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for PeVD using expert consensus. Materials and methods: An independent Advisory Board (AB) of 11 Italian specialists (gynaecologist, radiologists, vascular surgeons, and angiologists) was convened. A literature review informed the development of a draft algorithm. Three Delphi survey rounds were conducted, with online and in-person discussions, and a consensus threshold set at ≥70%. Results: All 11 AB members completed the first two survey rounds, and eight completed the third. The median number of diagnosed and treated PeVD cases per expert was 20 and 12 per year, respectively. The group agreed on classifying PeVD into Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS) and compressive/obstructive syndromes. Endovascular therapy was recognised as standard of care: pelvic embolisation for PCS, stenting for obstructive lesions, and combined approaches when both are present. Clinical success was defined as subjective symptom improvement assessed 3-6 months post-procedure. Treatment failure warranted re-evaluation and possible reintervention. Surgical treatment was considered only when conservative and endovascular options failed (37.5% agree, 50% neutral). Conclusions: This Delphi-based consensus produced a validated, multidisciplinary algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of PeVD. It highlights the need for standardised clinical pathways, but further validation by a broader expert community is warranted.

德尔菲共识诊断和治疗途径盆腔静脉疾病-多学科算法。
背景:盆腔静脉疾病(PeVD)与慢性盆腔疼痛和静脉曲张有关,这是由于盆腔静脉功能不全和池化所致。尽管人们越来越感兴趣,但缺乏广泛接受的诊断算法和经过验证的标准,这使得诊断和管理变得复杂。本研究旨在利用专家共识开发和验证PeVD的诊断和治疗算法。材料和方法:召集了一个由11名意大利专家(妇科医生、放射科医生、血管外科医生和血管科医生)组成的独立咨询委员会(AB)。一篇文献综述为算法草案的发展提供了信息。进行了三轮德尔菲调查,包括在线和面对面讨论,共识阈值设置为≥70%。结果:11名AB成员全部完成了前两轮调查,8名成员完成了第三轮调查。每位专家每年诊断和治疗的PeVD病例中位数分别为20例和12例。该小组同意将PeVD分为盆腔充血综合征(PCS)和压缩/阻塞性综合征。血管内治疗被认为是标准的治疗方法:盆腔栓塞治疗PCS,支架置入治疗阻塞性病变,当两者同时存在时联合入路。临床成功定义为术后3-6个月主观症状改善评估。治疗失败需要重新评估和可能的再干预。只有当保守和血管内治疗失败时才考虑手术治疗(37.5%同意,50%中立)。结论:基于德尔菲的共识产生了一个有效的、多学科的PeVD诊断和治疗算法。它强调了标准化临床途径的必要性,但需要更广泛的专家社区进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
61
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Vasa is the European journal of vascular medicine. It is the official organ of the German, Swiss, and Slovenian Societies of Angiology. The journal publishes original research articles, case reports and reviews on vascular biology, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, medical treatment and interventions for diseases of the arterial circulation, in the field of phlebology and lymphology including the microcirculation, except the cardiac circulation. Vasa combines basic science with clinical medicine making it relevant to all physicians interested in the whole vascular field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书