Skip to main content

Current Clinical Management of Pelvic Congestion Syndrome

Endovascular Techniques

Current Clinical Management of Pelvic Congestion Syndrome

You must login or register to download this PDF.
Author Information:

David A. Greuner, MD, and Danielle DeMarco 


After an extensive review of the current literature on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment modalities for pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS), we have found that the issue of underdiagnosis can likely be attributed to the lack of a standard protocol for the clinical management and treatment of the disease. There have been consistencies across various studies, including accurate diagnostic testing and a successful treatment method, and it is our goal to propose a clear algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of PCS, as well as to highlight the importance of differentiating between types of PCS when deciding on an appropriate treatment plan.

Key words: Pelvic congestion syndrome, pelvic congestion, chronic pelvic pain, pelvic venous insufficiency, venous embolization, contrast venography, ovarian veins, gonadal veins, iliac veins

Pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS) is a misunderstood and often underdiagnosed cause of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women of child-bearing age. CPP is estimated to account for up to 40% of all gynecological visits, yet an estimated 51% to 55% of women with pelvic pain remain untreated for years without receiving an accurate diagnosis.1 Although PCS was previously assumed to be a rare disorder, its prevalence seems to be significantly greater than what was once assumed. More women with once unexplained CPP are being diagnosed with PCS, and this increase in diagnosis is likely driven by increased awareness of the syndrome during recent years.1 

Despite the increase in the detection of PCS, there are still differences in opinion among members of the medical community regarding the best protocols for diagnosis and treatment. We believe that the existence of a clear, standard approach to the diagnosis and treatment of PCS would even further reduce the number of women who experience CPP.


A literature review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, UpToDate, and the Stony Brook University Library online database. The goal was to find all of the necessary information known about the diagnosis and treatment of PCS.

Articles were sorted by evidence level in order to assess their reliability, using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM)2 Table of Evidence as a general guide. Forty-three articles were selected and sorted by article type (diagnosis-focused or treatment-focused) for further detailed evaluation by their title, abstract, and key words. 

Clinical Features And Diagnosis

Anatomy. The major vessels involved in venous drainage of the female pelvic area (Figure 1) are the inferior vena cava (IVC), left and right common iliac veins, left and right external iliac veins, left and right internal iliac veins, left and right ovarian veins, left renal vein, right renal vein, and the left and right uterine veins. Venous blood flows into bilateral common iliac veins from the  internal iliac veins and their tributaries, the uterine, ovarian, and vesicovaginal plexuses. The bilateral common iliac veins and bilateral renal veins all drain directly into the IVC. The right ovarian vein also drains directly into the IVC, while the left ovarian vein drains into the eft renal vein.   

Types of PCS. Although the precise etiology of PCS remains unclear, nearly all of the current literature suggests that the disease is multifactorial.  There are additional consistencies across studies regarding the possible presentation. However, only a small number of studies make specific mention of the different types of PCS.

Within the literature that does mention different types of PCS, authors do not agree on the exact number of types, and there are no clear definitions for each type. Articles mention anywhere from 2 to 5 types of PCS, and this range of types may add to the challenge in diagnosis.1,3,4 To allow for a simple diagnostic and treatment protocol, we believe that the most logical solution would be to separate symptomatic PCS into two separate categories: primary and secondary.

Primary PCS is caused by pelvic venous insufficiency (PVI), which may be defined as an incompetence of ovarian veins and/or internal iliac veins.1,3 It is likely that hormones, specifically estrogen acting as a vasodilator, play a role in weakening of the veins. High levels of estrogen cause an increase in the release of nitric oxide, which leads to the relaxation of smooth muscle. This smooth muscle relaxation may be a key contributor to vascular incompetence. 

Secondary PCS is caused by extrinsic compression of the pelvic veins, resulting in obstructed outflow. It is often related to May-Thurner syndrome (MTS) or to compression of the left external iliac vein by the left external iliac artery, known as Nutcracker syndrome (NCS). Secondary PCS may also be related to compression of the left renal vein between the aorta and the superior mesenteric artery. 

Presentation. Symptoms that have most consistently been found to accompany PCS include:1,3-43

•Pelvic pain lasting at least 6 months, usually described as a dull ache or heaviness in the lower abdominal/pelvic region;

• Presence of visible or non-visible pelvic varices;

• Dysmenorrhea;

• Dyspareunia;

• Bladder irritability and/or urgency;

•Worsening of symptoms after prolonged periods of standing;

• Lower-extremity varices;

• Back pain and/or leg pain.

It has also been reported that symptoms become more pronounced during and after pregnancy, and their severity may increase after each additional pregnancy.3,5-10

The limited knowledge and underdiagnosis of PCS can be attributed to both its atypical presentation of symptoms, and the complexity of the female pelvic-venous anatomy.

Some of the differential diagnoses include pelvic inflammatory disease, endometriosis, interstitial cystitis, adhesions, malignancy, adenomyosis, irritable bowel disease, and uterine fibroids.1,2,5-7,11-14 The broad range of possible symptoms and atypical presentation often causes PCS to only be considered after all other differential diagnoses have been ruled out. While PCS shares many symptoms with other gynecologic, urologic, and musculoskeletal disorders, it is possible that the exact location of symptoms may not be the key to diagnosis. If patients present with any of the common symptoms of PCS, primary care physicians and gynecologists may find it beneficial to inquire about the postural nature of those symptoms. Although more research needs to be done on the subject, it is likely that an increase in symptom severity due to postural changes is a strong indicator for PCS.5,10,13,14

Non-invasive diagnostic imaging. There are several types of non-invasive diagnostic examinations currently available that may be used to accurately predict the presence of PCS. Pelvic venous duplex ultrasound (DUS) using the Valsalva maneuver to accentuate venous filling seems to be the best option for the selection of patients who should be sent for further testing. 

The diagnostic criteria for detection of PCS using DUS includes:1,8,15,16

Tortuous pelvic veins measuring >6 mm in diameter;

Dilated arcuate veins crossing the myometrium and communicating with bilateral pelvic varicosities;

• Reverse caudal or retrograde blood flow;

• Slow blood flow <3 cm/s.

Some have advocated for the use of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) over DUS. While there is a high probability of visualizing the peri-uterine veins using TVUS, the examination is limited in its ability to follow the pathways of the ovarian veins and to visualize possible higher compressions/obstructions that may indicate the presence of stenotic lesions (MTS and NCS).17

Diagnostic testing that uses radiation, such as computed tomography, is not recommended as the first choice for patients (especially patients of child-bearing age) when there are other accurate modalities available. Research suggests that the findings most indicative of PCS include dilated ovarian veins and the presence of reverse caudal blood flow that can be seen using DUS.1,18,19 The ability to take images using the Valsalva maneuver in order to accentuate blood flow, combined with its accuracy and cost-efficiency, make DUS the most reasonable choice when compared to other examinations such as magnetic resonance imaging  and magnetic resonance venography.

Invasive diagnostic imaging. After symptomatic patients are screened using DUS, those who meet the criteria may be sent for contrast venography, which has been widely accepted as the gold standard in diagnosing PCS. The literature states that access may be achieved through either the femoral or jugular veins. However, in our experience, using the saphenous vein for access has resulted in less incidence of both hematoma and post-operative bleeding, given the compressibility of the vessel. Thus, the saphenous vein is our primary source of access.

The diagnostic criteria for PCS using contrast venography vary slightly across studies.6,9 However, the majority of current articles describe the criteria for PCS as having one or more of the following: 1,3,6,9,20

• Incompetent pelvic veins measuring >5-10 mm in

• Moderate-severe engorgement of the ovarian plexus

• Venous reflux indicated by (slow) proximal injection into the ovarian veins with distal filling of the ovarian venous plexus;

• Filling of veins across the midline;

• Filling of vulvar or thigh varicosities.

During diagnostic venography, it is important to perform a full evaluation in order to find all possible venous pathologies that may be contributing to symptoms. Full evaluation includes visualization of the 1) internal and external iliac system, 2) bilateral ovarian veins, and 3) left renal vein.


Medical management of PCS is an option for treatment with the use of drugs such as medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (HnRH)]. However, the use of those drugs is not a favored long-term method due to the high reports of symptom reoccurrence after 6 months, possibility of adverse events, and inability to reduce symptoms caused by secondary PCS.9,12,13,15

There are several traditional and laparoscopic surgical options with reported success in management of PCS symptoms, but these surgeries often involve the removal of uninvolved bystander structures and the risk of surgical complications and possible fertility issues, which is why endovascular treatment has been the most agreed-upon treatment for PCS.12,21,22 Transcatheter embolization is a safe and reliable treatment modality for PCS that may conveniently be performed at the same time as diagnostic venography. During transcatheter embolization, a catheter is advanced to the ovarian and/or hypogastric vein, and the symptomatic vessel is embolized using Gelfoam (Pfizer) (Figure 2), sclerotherapy, coil, or a combination of materials.

The reported success rate of transcatheter embolization for the treatment of PCS varies due to the wide range of inclusion parameters, variable measurement strategies, and amount of time  that constitutes “long-term,” with studies reporting anywhere from 47% to 100% of patients experiencing significant symptom relief 18 months to 5 years post embolization.1,11,21,23,24

Complications with embolization are not common, but possible risks include coil migration, vessel perforation, local phlebitis, deep-vein thrombosis, occlusion of non-target vessels, and reaction to a contrast agent.6,9,14,15,21-24 While there have been no studies comparing different embolization materials, the incidence of coil migration has been reduced over recent years, since more providers have been choosing to use other methods such as Gelfoam or sclerotherapy.5 

The majority of the current literature does not differentiate between primary and secondary PCS when discussing treatment, but it is important to remember that embolization alone may not be successful in reducing all symptoms in patients with stenotic lesions resulting from MTS or NCS. Greiner and colleagues7 highlight the importance of looking into the specifics of the pathophysiology of each case of PCS before deciding on an appropriate treatment plan.While patients with secondary PCS may feel relief post embolization, some may experience reoccurrence of symptoms, or they may develop new symptoms if stenotic lesions remain untreated. It may be necessary to perform an additional contrast venography with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to measure any lesions caused by MTS and/or NCS, and to treat the stenosis with stent placement in order to relieve all remaining/new symptoms. 

Although the research is limited, some studies have been done on stenting and angioplasty of iliac veins to improve symptoms of PCS. The results of these studies imply that embolization and stenting together are more effective in the treatment of secondary PCS than embolization alone.4 Daughtry and Gillespie41 reported that treatment with stents and angioplasty resulted in complete relief of pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and left lower-extremity pain in 79%, 82%, and 87% of patients, respectively.


While there have been significant advances in recent years, lack of a standard protocol for diagnosis and treatment of PCS remains an issue. After a thorough review of the literature, we propose a simple algorithmic approach for clinical management of PCS (Figure 3). 

We would like to highlight the importance of remembering the different types of PCS during diagnosis and treatment. There is a chance that the atypical presentation of symptoms may be attributed to the specific type of PCS (primary vs secondary), which is why the positional nature of symptoms may be a better indicator for PCS than the specific symptom location. 

It is also possible that a large number of patient reports of symptom reoccurrence or presentation of new symptoms post embolization are due to failure to treat all of the symptom-causing venous pathologies in patients with secondary PCS.  

Disclosure: The authors report no financial relationships or conflicts of interest regarding the content herein.

Manuscript submitted August 30, 2020; accepted September 24, 2020.

Address for correspondence: Danielle DeMarco, NYC Surgical Associates,  145 W. Montauk Highway, Hampton Bays, NY, 11946. Email:


1. Borghi C, Atti LD. Pelvic congestion syndrome: the current state of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(2):291-301.

2. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Accessed January 15, 2020.

3. Mahmoud O, Vikatmaa P, Aho P, et al. Efficacy of endovascular treatment for pelvic congestion syndrome. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2016;4(3):355-370.

4. Santoshi RKN, Lakhanpal S, Satwah V, Lakhanpal G, Malone M, Pappas PJ. Iliac vein stenosis is an underdiagnosed cause of pelvic venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018;6(2):202-211.

5. Rane N, Leyon JJ, Littlehales T, Ganeshan A, Crowe P, Uberoi R. Pelvic congestion syndrome. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2013;42(4):135-140.

6. Lopez AJ. Female pelvic vein embolization: indications, techniques, and outcomes. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(4):806-820.

7. Greiner M, Dadon M, Lemasle, Cluzel P. How does the path-physiology influence the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome and is the result long lasting? Phlebology. 2012;27 Suppl 1:58-64.

8. Steenbeek MP, Van Der Vleuten CJM, Schultze Kool LJ, Nieboer TE. Noninvasive diagnostic tools for pelvic congestion syndrome: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(7):776-786.

9. Phillips D, Deipolyi AR, Hesketh RL, Midia M, Oklu R. Pelvic congestion syndrome: Etiology, pain, diagnosis, and clinical management. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(5):725-733.

10. Jurga-Karwacka A, Karwacki GM, Schoetzau A, Zech CJ, Heinzelmann-Schwartz V, Schwab FD. A forgotten disease: pelvic congestion syndrome as a cause of chronic lower abdominal pain. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(4): e0213834.

11. Laborda A, Medrano J, de Blas I, Urtiaga I, Carnevale FC, de Gregorio MA. Endovascular treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome: visual analog scale (VAS) long-term follow-up clinical evaluation in 202 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(4):1006-1014.

12. Meissner MH, Gibson K. Clinical outcome after treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome: sense and nonsense. Phlebology. 2015;30(1 Suppl):73-80.

13. O’Brien MT, Gillespie, DL. Diagnosis and treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3(1):96-106.

14. Semmel D. Pelvic congestion syndrome what is it and who do we treat? J Radiol Nurs. 2014;33:57-62.

15. Osman MW, Nikolopoulos I, Jayaprakasan K, Raine-Fenning N. Pelvic congestion syndrome. Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;15:151-157.

16. Keis DD, Kim HS. Pelvic congestion syndrome: a review of current diagnostic and minimally invasive treatment modalities. Phlebology. 2012;27 Suppl 1:52-57.

17. Labropoulos N, Jasinski PT, Adrahtas D, Gasparis AP, Meissner MH. A standardized ultrasound approach to pelvic congestion syndrome. Phlebology. 2017;32(9):608-619.

18. Sharma K, Bora MK, Varghese J, Malik G, Kuruvilla R. Role of trans vaginal ultrasound and doppler in diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(7):OD05-OD07.

19. Park SJ, Lim JW, Ko YT, et al. Diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome using transabdominal and transvaginal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(3):683-688.

20. Thors A, Haurani MJ, Gregio TK, Go MR. Endovascular intervention for pelvic congestion syndrome is justified for chronic pelvic pain relief and patient satisfaction. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2014;2(3):268-273.

21. Abdelsalam H. Clinical outcome of ovarian vein embolization in pelvic congestion syndrome. AJM. 2017;53:15-20.

22. Nasser F, Cavalcante RN, Affonso BB, Messina ML, Carnevale FC, Gregorio MA. Safety, efficacy, and prognostic factors in endovascular treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125(1):63-68.

23. Asciutto G, Asciutto KC, Mumme A, Geier B. Pelvic venous incompetence: reflux patterns and treatment results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38(3):381-386.

24. El-Galil MSA, Bassiouny AM, El-Tawab KAA, Moursy AEK. Role of trans-catheter ovarian vein embolization in the management of symptomatic chronic pelvic congestion in females. Egypt J Hosp Med. 2017;68(2):1224-1228.

25. Kim HS, Malhotra AD, Rowe PC, Lee JM, Venbrux AC. Embolotherapy for pelvic congestion syndrome: long-term results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(2 Pt 1):289-297.

26. Venbrux AC, Chang AH, KIM HS, et al. Pelvic congestion syndrome (pelvic venous incompetence): impact of ovarian and internal iliac vein embolotherapy on menstrual cycle and chronic pelvic pain. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(2 Pt 1):171-178.

27. Chung MH, Huh CY. Comparison of treatments for pelvic congestion syndrome. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2003;201(3):131-138.

28. Kwon SH, Oh JH, Ko KR, Park HC, Hun JY. Transcatheter ovarian vein embolization using coils for the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30(4):655-661.

29. Monedero JL, Ezpeleta SZ, Perrin M. Pelvic congestion syndrome can be treated operatively with good long-term results. Phlebology. 2012;27(Suppl 1):65-73.

30. Edwards RD, Robertson IR, MacLean AB, Hemingway AP. Case report: pelvic pain syndrome-successful treatment of a case by ovarian vein embolization. Clin Radiol. 1993;47(6):429-431. 

31. Sichlau MJ, Yao JS, Vogelzang RL. Transcatheter embolotherapy for the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83(5 Pt 2):892-896. 

32. Tarazov PG, Prozorovskij KV, Ryzhkov VK. Pelvic pain syndrome caused by ovarian varices. Treatment by transcatheter embolization. Acta Radiol. 1997;38(6):1023-1025. 

33. Capasso P. Treatment of symptomatic varices by ovarian vein embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1997;20(2):107-111.

34. Cordts PR, Eclavea A, Buckley PJ. Pelvic congestion syndrome: early clinical results after transcatheter ovarian vein embolization. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:862-868.

35. Maleux G, Stockx L, Wilms G, Marchal G. Ovarian vein embolization for the treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome: long-term technical and clinical results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(7):859-864.

36. Pieri S, Agresti P, Morucci M, deMedici L. Percutaneous treatment of pelvic congestion syndrome. Radiol Med. 2003;105(1-2):76-82. 

37. Bachar GN, Belenky A, Greif F, et al. Initial experience with ovarian vein embolization for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Isr Med Assoc J. 2003;5(12):843-846.

38. Creton D, Hennequin L, Koihler F, Allaert FA. Embolization of pelvic vein insufficiency in women presenting non-saphenous varicose veins of pelvic origin: three-year follow-up. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;34(1): 112-117.

39. Gandini R, Chiocchi M, Konda D, Pampana E, Fabiano S, Simonetti G. Transcatheter foam sclerotherapy of symptomatic female varicocele with sodium-tetradecyl-sulfate foam. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2008;31(4):778-784.

40. Meneses L, Fava M, Diaz P, et al. Embolization of incompetent pelvic veins for the treatment of recurrent varicose veins in lower limbs and pelvic congestion syndrome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(1):128-132.

41. Daugherty SF, Gillespie DL. Venous angioplasty and stenting improve pelvic congestion syndrome caused by venous outflow obstruction. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;3(3):283-289.

42. Kennedy A, Hemmingway A. Radiology of ovarian varices. Br J Hosp Med. 1990;44(1):38-43.

43. Freedman J, Ganeshan A, Crowe PM. Pelvic congestion syndrome: the role of interventional radiology in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86(1022):704-710.

Back to Top