OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the use of urodynamics to determine the need for incontinence surgery at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). STUDY DESIGN: The records of 441 women undergoing ASC during 2005-2007 were reviewed. Group 1 consisted of 204 women (46.3%) with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI), including occult USI, who underwent incontinence surgery with ASC. Group 2 consisted of 237 women (53.7%) without USI who underwent ASC alone. Primary outcome measures were any complaint of postoperative incontinence (stress or urge) or new-onset urgency/frequency (UF). RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 46.6 weeks, the overall rate of incontinence was low and similar for both groups (13.4% in group 1 and 13.3% in group 2 [P = .967]), as was new-onset UF: 18.6% in group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = .195). CONCLUSION: Urodynamic evaluation appears to be useful in determining the need for incontinence surgery at the time of ASC. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the use of urodynamics to determine the need for incontinence surgery at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). STUDY DESIGN: The records of 441 women undergoing ASC during 2005-2007 were reviewed. Group 1 consisted of 204 women (46.3%) with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI), including occult USI, who underwent incontinence surgery with ASC. Group 2 consisted of 237 women (53.7%) without USI who underwent ASC alone. Primary outcome measures were any complaint of postoperative incontinence (stress or urge) or new-onset urgency/frequency (UF). RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 46.6 weeks, the overall rate of incontinence was low and similar for both groups (13.4% in group 1 and 13.3% in group 2 [P = .967]), as was new-onset UF: 18.6% in group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = .195). CONCLUSION: Urodynamic evaluation appears to be useful in determining the need for incontinence surgery at the time of ASC. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jean Park; Colleen D McDermott; Colin L Terry; Richard C Bump; Patrick J Woodman; Douglass S Hale Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Edgar L LeClaire; Marium S Mukati; Dianna Juarez; Dena White; Lieschen H Quiroz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 2.894