Alexandriah N Alas1, Orawee Chinthakanan2, Luis Espaillat1, Leon Plowright1, G Willy Davila1, Vivian C Aguilar3,4. 1. Department of Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 3. Department of Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. vaguilarmd@gmail.com. 4. Department of Women's Health, Dell School of Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, 1313 Red River Street, Austin, TX, 78701, USA. vaguilarmd@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is a paucity of data evaluating the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women with no preoperative occult SUI. We hypothesized that apical suspension procedures would have higher rates of de novo SUI. METHODS: This was a retrospective database review of women who had surgery for POP from 2003 to 2013 and developed de novo SUI at ≥6 months postoperatively. Preoperatively, all patients had a negative stress test and no evidence of occult SUI on prolapse reduction urodynamics. The primary objective was to establish the incidence of de novo SUI in women with no objective evidence of preoperative occult SUI after POP surgeries at ≥6 months. RESULTS: A total number of 274 patients underwent POP surgery. The overall incidence of de novo SUI was 9.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.14]. However, the incidence of de novo SUI in those with no baseline complaint of SUI was 4.4 % (95 % CI 0.03-0.1). There was no difference in de novo SUI rates between apical [9.7 % (n = 57)] and nonapical [10.5 %, (n = 217] procedures (p = 0.8482). Multivariate logistic regression identified sacrocolpopexy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.54, 95 % CI 1.2-14.7] and those with a baseline complaint of SUI (adjusted OR 5.1; 95 % CI 2.2-12) as risk factors for de novo SUI. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of de novo SUI after surgery for POP without occult SUI was 9.9 %. We recommend counseling patients about the risk of de novo SUI and offering a staged procedure.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is a paucity of data evaluating the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women with no preoperative occult SUI. We hypothesized that apical suspension procedures would have higher rates of de novo SUI. METHODS: This was a retrospective database review of women who had surgery for POP from 2003 to 2013 and developed de novo SUI at ≥6 months postoperatively. Preoperatively, all patients had a negative stress test and no evidence of occult SUI on prolapse reduction urodynamics. The primary objective was to establish the incidence of de novo SUI in women with no objective evidence of preoperative occult SUI after POP surgeries at ≥6 months. RESULTS: A total number of 274 patients underwent POP surgery. The overall incidence of de novo SUI was 9.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.14]. However, the incidence of de novo SUI in those with no baseline complaint of SUI was 4.4 % (95 % CI 0.03-0.1). There was no difference in de novo SUI rates between apical [9.7 % (n = 57)] and nonapical [10.5 %, (n = 217] procedures (p = 0.8482). Multivariate logistic regression identified sacrocolpopexy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.54, 95 % CI 1.2-14.7] and those with a baseline complaint of SUI (adjusted OR 5.1; 95 % CI 2.2-12) as risk factors for de novo SUI. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of de novo SUI after surgery for POP without occult SUI was 9.9 %. We recommend counseling patients about the risk of de novo SUI and offering a staged procedure.
Entities:
Keywords:
De novo; Occult; Pelvic organ prolapse; Sacrocolpopexy; Stress urinary incontinence; Surgery
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Christopher F Maher; Matthew D Barber; Sérgio Camargo; Vani Dandolu; Alex Digesu; Howard B Goldman; Martin Huser; Alfredo L Milani; Paul A Moran; Gabriel N Schaer; Mariëlla I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: John T Wei; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Charles W Nager; Matthew D Barber; Kim Kenton; Cindy L Amundsen; Joseph Schaffer; Susan F Meikle; Cathie Spino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
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: Giampiero Capobianco; Antonio Azzena; Laura Saderi; Francesco Dessole; Salvatore Dessole; Giovanni Sotgiu Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 2.894