PURPOSE: We determined the indications for anti-incontinence surgery in continent women undergoing surgical repair of severe urogenital prolapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 24 continent women referred for evaluation of severe urogenital prolapse. All patients underwent a meticulous clinical evaluation, including a complete history and physical examination, urinary questionnaire, voiding diary, pad test, cotton swab test, video urodynamics and cystoscopy. The urodynamic evaluation was repeated with prolapse repositioning by a fitted vaginal pessary. Surgical intervention was tailored according to urodynamic findings. RESULTS: Reduction of prolpase with a pessary unmasked sphincteric incontinence in 14 women (58%). Ten women with no urodynamic evidence of sphincteric incontinence underwent anterior colporrhaphy and no additional anti-incontinence procedure was performed. Mean followup was 44 months (range 12 to 96). None had postoperative stress incontinence but 1 (10%) had a recurrent grade 2 cystocele. The 14 remaining women with sphincteric incontinence after prolapse reduction underwent anterior colporrhaphy with a pubovaginal sling procedure. Mean followup in these cases was 47 months (range 12 to 108). In 2 patients (14%) stress incontinence developed postoperatively and 1 (7%) had a recurrent grade 3 cystocele. The incidence of urge incontinence did not appear to be significantly influenced by either surgical intervention. Overall 12 patients had preoperative urge incontinence, of whom 9 (75%) had persistent urge incontinence postoperatively. In another woman new onset urge incontinence developed. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative urodynamic evaluation with and without prolapse reduction is essential for making the correct diagnosis of masked stress incontinence in women with urogenital prolapse. The decision to perform a concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure should be tailored to individual urodynamic findings. Larger series and longer followup are needed to establish the most effective preventive procedure for this troublesome clinical problem.
PURPOSE: We determined the indications for anti-incontinence surgery in continent women undergoing surgical repair of severe urogenital prolapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 24 continent women referred for evaluation of severe urogenital prolapse. All patients underwent a meticulous clinical evaluation, including a complete history and physical examination, urinary questionnaire, voiding diary, pad test, cotton swab test, video urodynamics and cystoscopy. The urodynamic evaluation was repeated with prolapse repositioning by a fitted vaginal pessary. Surgical intervention was tailored according to urodynamic findings. RESULTS: Reduction of prolpase with a pessary unmasked sphincteric incontinence in 14 women (58%). Ten women with no urodynamic evidence of sphincteric incontinence underwent anterior colporrhaphy and no additional anti-incontinence procedure was performed. Mean followup was 44 months (range 12 to 96). None had postoperative stress incontinence but 1 (10%) had a recurrent grade 2 cystocele. The 14 remaining women with sphincteric incontinence after prolapse reduction underwent anterior colporrhaphy with a pubovaginal sling procedure. Mean followup in these cases was 47 months (range 12 to 108). In 2 patients (14%) stress incontinence developed postoperatively and 1 (7%) had a recurrent grade 3 cystocele. The incidence of urge incontinence did not appear to be significantly influenced by either surgical intervention. Overall 12 patients had preoperative urge incontinence, of whom 9 (75%) had persistent urge incontinence postoperatively. In another woman new onset urge incontinence developed. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative urodynamic evaluation with and without prolapse reduction is essential for making the correct diagnosis of masked stress incontinence in women with urogenital prolapse. The decision to perform a concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure should be tailored to individual urodynamic findings. Larger series and longer followup are needed to establish the most effective preventive procedure for this troublesome clinical problem.