Tania Sierra1, Gina Sullivan2, Katherine Leung2, Michael Flynn2. 1. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 119 Belmont Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA. Tania.sierra@umassmemorial.org. 2. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 119 Belmont Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus for the evaluation of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in patients planning pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. We sought to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of prolapse reduction during preoperative urodynamics (UDS) for postoperative SUI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 322 women with preoperative UDS and subsequent POP surgery. Abstracted data included demographics, prolapse stage, prior prolapse or incontinence surgery, preoperative SUI complaint, prolapse reduction method, and length of follow-up. Any woman who reported SUI symptoms within 6 months from surgery was considered a diagnostic UDS failure. The NPV was calculated by dividing the number of patients who did not demonstrate SUI on UDS and had no postoperative SUI by the number of patients who did not demonstrate SUI on UDS. RESULTS: Patient characteristics (age, race, parity, prolapse stage, prior surgery, and length of follow-up) were similar among those who had urodynamic-proven SUI and those who did not. The NPV of preoperative UDS for postoperative SUI in patients undergoing any POP repair was 97.9.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7-99.7%]. The NPV remained high in the subset of patients who underwent an apical suspension-98.6% (95% CI 92.7-100.0%)-as well as those without a preoperative SUI complaint-98.6% (95% CI 92.3-100.0%). In most patients (72.9%), a ring pessary with support combined with intraprocedural manipulation allowed for reliable stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports using preoperative UDS as a screening tool to avoid unnecessary concomitant continence procedures. Further studies are needed to individualize patient preoperative assessment and surgical counseling.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus for the evaluation of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in patients planning pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. We sought to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of prolapse reduction during preoperative urodynamics (UDS) for postoperative SUI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 322 women with preoperative UDS and subsequent POP surgery. Abstracted data included demographics, prolapse stage, prior prolapse or incontinence surgery, preoperative SUI complaint, prolapse reduction method, and length of follow-up. Any woman who reported SUI symptoms within 6 months from surgery was considered a diagnostic UDS failure. The NPV was calculated by dividing the number of patients who did not demonstrate SUI on UDS and had no postoperative SUI by the number of patients who did not demonstrate SUI on UDS. RESULTS:Patient characteristics (age, race, parity, prolapse stage, prior surgery, and length of follow-up) were similar among those who had urodynamic-proven SUI and those who did not. The NPV of preoperative UDS for postoperative SUI in patients undergoing any POP repair was 97.9.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7-99.7%]. The NPV remained high in the subset of patients who underwent an apical suspension-98.6% (95% CI 92.7-100.0%)-as well as those without a preoperative SUI complaint-98.6% (95% CI 92.3-100.0%). In most patients (72.9%), a ring pessary with support combined with intraprocedural manipulation allowed for reliable stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports using preoperative UDS as a screening tool to avoid unnecessary concomitant continence procedures. Further studies are needed to individualize patient preoperative assessment and surgical counseling.
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Kevin Chagin; Linda Brubaker; Rebecca G Rogers; Holly E Richter; Lily Arya; Matthew D Barber; Jonathan P Shepherd; Tracy L Nolen; Peggy Norton; Vivian Sung; Shawn Menefee; Nazema Siddiqui; Susan F Meikle; Michael W Kattan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Erin E Duecy; James Q Pulvino; Anna R McNanley; Gunhilde M Buchsbaum Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Paul Fine; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Halina Zyczynski; Morton B Brown; Anne M Weber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Monica L Richardson; Christopher S Elliott; Jonathan G Shaw; Craig V Comiter; Bertha Chen; Eric R Sokol Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anthony G Visco; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Geoffrey Cundiff; Paul Fine; Halina Zyczynski; Morton B Brown; Anne M Weber Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2008-01-09