PURPOSE: To analyse the success of transvaginal urethrolysis in resolving voiding dysfunction in patients following an anti-incontinence procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 20 patients who had undergone transvaginal urethrolysis for urethral obstruction following an anti-incontinence procedure. Preoperatively, a history was taken, pelvic examination and urodynamic were done. Mean patient age was 48 years, and the median time between the anti-incontinence procedure and the urethrolysis was nine months. Four patients had urinary retention and had irritative voiding symptoms. Previous surgery included pubovaginal sling in eleven patients, retropubic urethropexy in three and bladder neck suspension in six cases. Mean length of follow up after urethrolysis was 14 months. The urodynamic study demonstrated voiding flow rate of 9.9 ml/s and detrusor pressures at maximum flow of 48cmH20. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients 14 (70%) had relief of symptoms after a single urethrolysis, while two patients underwent a second transvaginal urethrolysis, with placement of a Martius flap between the urethra and the symphysis. There was no correlation between preoperative parameters examined and the outcome from urethrolysis. CONCLUSION: Our data support transvaginal urethrolysis for the treatment of urethral obstruction after anti-incontinence surgery. It is effective and minimally invasive technique with good results that should be considered if voiding dysfunction does not resolve spontaneously.
PURPOSE: To analyse the success of transvaginal urethrolysis in resolving voiding dysfunction in patients following an anti-incontinence procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 20 patients who had undergone transvaginal urethrolysis for urethral obstruction following an anti-incontinence procedure. Preoperatively, a history was taken, pelvic examination and urodynamic were done. Mean patient age was 48 years, and the median time between the anti-incontinence procedure and the urethrolysis was nine months. Four patients had urinary retention and had irritative voiding symptoms. Previous surgery included pubovaginal sling in eleven patients, retropubic urethropexy in three and bladder neck suspension in six cases. Mean length of follow up after urethrolysis was 14 months. The urodynamic study demonstrated voiding flow rate of 9.9 ml/s and detrusor pressures at maximum flow of 48cmH20. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients 14 (70%) had relief of symptoms after a single urethrolysis, while two patients underwent a second transvaginal urethrolysis, with placement of a Martius flap between the urethra and the symphysis. There was no correlation between preoperative parameters examined and the outcome from urethrolysis. CONCLUSION: Our data support transvaginal urethrolysis for the treatment of urethral obstruction after anti-incontinence surgery. It is effective and minimally invasive technique with good results that should be considered if voiding dysfunction does not resolve spontaneously.