Advertisement

Effects of etonogestrel implant on quality of life, sexual function, and pelvic pain in women suffering from endometriosis: results from a multicenter, prospective, observational study

  • Anna Sansone
  • Nicoletta De Rosa
  • Pierluigi Giampaolino
  • Maurizio Guida
  • Antonio Simone Laganà
  • Costantino Di Carlo
General Gynecology

Abstract

Purpose

Progestins are successfully employed as treatment for endometriosis. Our study evaluates the effects of the etonogestrel (ENG) implant on pelvic pain, quality of life, and sexual function in women requiring long-term reversible contraception and presenting ovarian cysts of probable endometriotic origin.

Methods

We enrolled 25 women asking for contraception with the ENG implant and presenting a cyst with the ultrasound features of an endometrioma and pain symptoms. Patients were interviewed on pain symptoms (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and dysuria) using a VAS score (0–10), on quality of life (QoL) using the Short Form-36 questionnaire, and on sexual activity using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire before inserting the implant (T0) and after 6 (T1) and 12 months (T2).

Results

We found a significant decrease in dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia VAS scores comparing baseline scores to 6 and 12 months. After 12 months, the bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, and mental health domains of the QoL score were significantly improved. The total FSFI score results increased in comparison with baseline both at 6 and 12 months. In particular, we highlighted a significant improvement in desire, satisfaction, and pain domains already at 6 months; the arousal domain improved only after 12 months. Finally, mean diameters of endometrioma-like cysts were not changed after 12 months of treatment.

Conclusions

Etonogestrel implants seem to be able to reduce pelvic pain, improve sexual function, and quality of life in patients with ovarian cysts suspected of endometriotic origin.

Keywords

Endometriosis Etonogestrel implant Pelvic pain Quality of life Contraception 

Notes

Author contributions

AS: manuscript writing. NR: data collection. PG: manuscript writing. MG: data collection. ASL: manuscript editing. CC: project supervision.

Funding

This study was not supported by any grant/fund.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no proprietary, financial, professional, or other personal interest of any nature in any product, service, or company.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Vercellini P, Viganò P, Somigliana E, Fedele L (2014) Endometriosis: pathogenesis and treatment. Nat Rev Endocrinol 10:261–275.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2013.255 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nisolle M, Donnez J (1997) Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril 68:585–596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00191-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laganà AS, Vitale SG, Salmeri FM et al (2017) Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno: a novel, evidence-based, unifying theory for the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Med Hypotheses.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2017.03.032 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maniglio P, Ricciardi E, Laganà AS et al (2016) Epigenetic modifications of primordial reproductive tract: a common etiologic pathway for Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser Syndrome and endometriosis? Med Hypotheses.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2016.02.015 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rakhila H, Al-Akoum M, Bergeron ME et al (2016) Promotion of angiogenesis and proliferation cytokines patterns in peritoneal fluid from women with endometriosis. J Reprod Immunol 116:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jri.2016.01.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vetvicka V, Laganà AS, Salmeri FM et al (2016) Regulation of apoptotic pathways during endometriosis: from the molecular basis to the future perspectives. Arch Gynecol Obstet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4195-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laganà AS, Triolo O, Salmeri FM et al (2016) Natural Killer T cell subsets in eutopic and ectopic endometrium: a fresh look to a busy corner. Arch Gynecol Obstet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-4004-7 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koga K, Takamura M, Fujii T, Osuga Y (2015) Prevention of the recurrence of symptom and lesions after conservative surgery for endometriosis. Fertil Steril 104:793–801.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosignani PG, Olive D, Bergqvist A, Luciano A (2006) Advances in the management of endometriosis: an update for clinicians. Hum Reprod Update 12:179–189.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmi049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunselman GAJ, Vermeulen N, Becker C et al (2014) ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 29:400–412.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det457 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olive DL, Pritts EA (2002) The treatment of endometriosis: a review of the evidence. Ann N Y Acad Sci 955:360–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vercellini P, Fedele L, Pietropaolo G et al (2003) Progestogens for endometriosis: forward to the past. Hum Reprod Update 9:387–396.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmg030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vercellini P, Crosignani P, Somigliana E et al (2011) ’Waiting for Godot: a commonsense approach to the medical treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod 26:3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq302 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berlanda N, Somigliana E, Viganò P, Vercellini P (2016) Safety of medical treatments for endometriosis. Expert Opin Drug Saf 15:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2016.1121991 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mäkäräinen L, Van Beek A, Tuomivaara L et al (1998) Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: implanon compared with Norplant. Fertil Steril 69:714–721.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00015-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blumenthal PD, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Marintcheva-Petrova M (2008) Tolerability and clinical safety of Implanon®. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 13:29–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180801960012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yisa SB, Okenwa AA, Husemeyer RP (2005) Treatment of pelvic endometriosis with etonogestrel subdermal implant (Implanon®). J Fam Plan Reprod Heal Care 31:67–70.  https://doi.org/10.1783/0000000052972799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walch K, Unfried G, Huber J et al (2009) Implanon® versus medroxyprogesterone acetate: effects on pain scores in patients with symptomatic endometriosis—a pilot study. Contraception 79:29–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist (2006) Endometriosis, investigation and management. RCOG Green- top Guideline No. 24Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2008) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61:344–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Gandek B et al (1998) The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1159–1165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nappi RE, Albani F, Vaccaro P et al (2008) Use of the Italian translation of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in routine gynecological practice. Gynecol Endocrinol 24:214–219.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590801925596 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Carlo C, Guida M, De Rosa N et al (2015) Bleeding profile in users of an etonogestrel sub-dermal implant: effects of anthropometric variables. An observational uncontrolled preliminary study in Italian population. Gynecol Endocrinol 31:491–494.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1018163 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gezer A, Oral E (2015) Progestin therapy in endometriosis. Women’s Heal 11:643–652.  https://doi.org/10.2217/whe.15.42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vercellini P, Pietropaolo G, De Giorgi O et al (2005) Treatment of symptomatic rectovaginal endometriosis with an estrogen-progestogen combination versus low-dose norethindrone acetate. Fertil Steril 84:1375–1387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.03.083 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schlaff WD, Carson SA, Luciano A et al (2006) Subcutaneous injection of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate compared with leuprolide acetate in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. Fertil Steril 85:314–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1315 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crosignani PG, Luciano A, Ray A, Bergqvist A (2006) Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate versus leuprolide acetate in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. Hum Reprod 21:248–256.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei290 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strowitzki T, Faustmann T, Gerlinger C, Seitz C (2010) Dienogest in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 151:193–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harada T, Momoeda M, Taketani Y et al (2009) Dienogest is as effective as intranasal buserelin acetate for the relief of pain symptoms associated with endometriosis-a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 91:675–681.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.080 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vercellini P, Bracco B, Mosconi P et al (2016) Norethindrone acetate or dienogest for the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis: a before and after study. Fertil Steril 105:734–743e3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bayoglu Tekin Y, Dilbaz B, Altinbas SK, Dilbaz S (2011) Postoperative medical treatment of chronic pelvic pain related to severe endometriosis: levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue. Fertil Steril 95:492–496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ylänen K, Laatikainen T, Lähteenmäki P, Moo-Young AJ (2003) Subdermal progestin implant (Nestorone®) in the treatment of endometriosis: clinical response to various doses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:167–172.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00054.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wenzl R, Van Beek A, Schnabel P, Huber J (1998) Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon®. Contraception 58:283–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00110-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meckstroth KR, Darney PD (2001) Implant contraception. Semin Reprod Med 19:339–354.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-18642 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Varma R, Mascarenhas L (2001) Endometrial effects of etonogestrel (Implanon) contraceptive implant. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 13:335–341.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001703-200106000-00015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Den Bosch T, Donders GGG, Riphagen I et al (2002) Ultrasonographic features of the endometrium and the ovaries in women on etonogestrel implant. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20:377–380.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00816.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mansour D, Korver T, Marintcheva-Petrova M, Fraser IS (2008) The effects of Implanon on menstrual bleeding patterns. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 13:13–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180801959931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bazot M, Daraï E, Biau DJ et al (2011) Learning curve of transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of endometriomas assessed by the cumulative summation test (LC-CUSUM). Fertil Steril 95:301–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Preventive MedicineUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive SciencesUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Medicine and Surgery of SalernoSalernoItaly
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology“Filippo Del Ponte” Hospital, University of InsubriaVareseItaly
  5. 5.Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine Unit of ObstetricsGynecology University of Catanzaro “Magna Graecia”CatanzaroItaly

Personalised recommendations