Xiaochen Song1, Lan Zhu2, Jing Ding1. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 ShuaiFu Road, Dongcheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 ShuaiFu Road, Dongcheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. zhu_julie@vip.sina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Part of the patients with pelvic organ prolapse but without symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may demonstrate SUI after prolapse surgery (occult SUI), and no optimal preoperative screening method is currently available for it. The aim of this study was to estimate the value of the preoperative 1-h pad test with pessary insertion for predicting the need for a mid-urethral sling (MUS) following prolapse surgery. METHODS: Two hundred and six patients were enrolled for advanced prolapse without complaining of urinary incontinence (UI) in this prospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria included prior or concomitant anti-incontinence surgery. Preoperatively, a stress test, the 1-h pad test and uroflowmetry were performed with prolapse reduction. Primary outcome was postoperative de novo UI. Median follow-up was 31 months (range 12-48 months). RESULTS: Of the 206 patients, 45 (21.8 %) had evidence of occult SUI preoperatively, 62 (30.1 %) exhibited de novo UI postoperatively, and only 13 (6.3 %) opted MUSs. Patients with occult SUI experienced higher de novo UI rate (53.3 vs. 23.6 %; P = 0.000). The OSUI and concomitant hysterectomy were identified as independent risk factors related to de novo UI (P = 0.000, P = 0.044). We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to evaluate the value of preoperative 1-h pad test. The area under ROC curve was 0.816 ± 0.085 (95 % CI 0.649-0.983); the cutoff value was 1.9 g (sensitivity 80.0 %, specificity 83.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative 1-h pad test with prolapse reduction is feasible for screening occult SUI, and more than 1.9 g may be a practical indicator of a postoperative subsequent MUS.
PURPOSE: Part of the patients with pelvic organ prolapse but without symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may demonstrate SUI after prolapse surgery (occult SUI), and no optimal preoperative screening method is currently available for it. The aim of this study was to estimate the value of the preoperative 1-h pad test with pessary insertion for predicting the need for a mid-urethral sling (MUS) following prolapse surgery. METHODS: Two hundred and six patients were enrolled for advanced prolapse without complaining of urinary incontinence (UI) in this prospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria included prior or concomitant anti-incontinence surgery. Preoperatively, a stress test, the 1-h pad test and uroflowmetry were performed with prolapse reduction. Primary outcome was postoperative de novo UI. Median follow-up was 31 months (range 12-48 months). RESULTS: Of the 206 patients, 45 (21.8 %) had evidence of occult SUI preoperatively, 62 (30.1 %) exhibited de novo UI postoperatively, and only 13 (6.3 %) opted MUSs. Patients with occult SUI experienced higher de novo UI rate (53.3 vs. 23.6 %; P = 0.000). The OSUI and concomitant hysterectomy were identified as independent risk factors related to de novo UI (P = 0.000, P = 0.044). We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to evaluate the value of preoperative 1-h pad test. The area under ROC curve was 0.816 ± 0.085 (95 % CI 0.649-0.983); the cutoff value was 1.9 g (sensitivity 80.0 %, specificity 83.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative 1-h pad test with prolapse reduction is feasible for screening occult SUI, and more than 1.9 g may be a practical indicator of a postoperative subsequent MUS.
Entities:
Keywords:
1-h pad test; Occult stress urinary incontinence; Pelvic organ prolapse; Prolapse surgery
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bela I Kudish; David Shveiky; Robert E Gutman; Vanessa Jacoby; Andrew I Sokol; Rebecca Rodabough; Barabara V Howard; Patricia Blanchette; Cheryl B Iglesia Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Anthony Visco; Anne M Weber; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Paul Fine; Chiara Ghetti; Morton B Brown Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 7.661