Matteo Balzarro1, Emanuele Rubilotta2, Nicolò Trabacchin2, Vito Mancini3, Elisabetta Costantini4, Walter Artibani2, Alessandro Antonelli2. 1. Dept. of Urology Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: matteo.balzarro@aovr.veneto.it. 2. Dept. of Urology Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy. 3. Dept. of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia, Italy. 4. Dept. of Andrology and Urogynecology, Santa Maria Hospital Terni, University of Perugia, Via Tristano di Joannuncio, Terni, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determinate the feasibility, reliability, and patient satisfaction of telephonic follow-up in women treated for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP): Patient-Home-Office-Novel-Evaluation (PHONE) study. METHODS: This is a prospective comparative study in women following surgery for SUI underwent middle urethral sling (MUS) (Group A), or symptomatic anterior vaginal wall (AVW) defect underwent AVW repair (fascial/mesh/biomesh) (Group B). The 1-year follow-up included a telephonic interview using a checklist and validated questionnaires followed by a standard outpatient clinic visit 7-12 days later including: an interview, validated questionnaires, objective examination, and score satisfaction with the telephone follow-up. RESULTS: We enrolled 420 pts: 215 for SUI in Group A, and 205 for POP in Group B. SUI recurrence was 19.1% and 11.6% at the telephone and office follow-up, respectively. De-novo urgency urinary incontinence rate was 7.5%. Telephone follow-up was able to detect POP recurrence and related symptoms. Tape and mesh extrusions were detected only at the objective evaluation: 1.9% and 4.4% respectively. No difference was found at the questionnaires. Satisfaction with the telephone follow-up was high. CONCLUSION: Due to the wrongly interpretation of de-novo urge urinary incontinence as a recurrence of SUI, a telephone interview may lose reliability in case of reported incontinence. Thus, telephone follow-up was feasible and reliable in women not reporting incontinence. In patients treated for POP the phone interview was a valid tool only in case of no-prosthetic surgery due to the absence of extrusion in these cases.
OBJECTIVE: To determinate the feasibility, reliability, and patient satisfaction of telephonic follow-up in women treated for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP): Patient-Home-Office-Novel-Evaluation (PHONE) study. METHODS: This is a prospective comparative study in women following surgery for SUI underwent middle urethral sling (MUS) (Group A), or symptomatic anterior vaginal wall (AVW) defect underwent AVW repair (fascial/mesh/biomesh) (Group B). The 1-year follow-up included a telephonic interview using a checklist and validated questionnaires followed by a standard outpatient clinic visit 7-12 days later including: an interview, validated questionnaires, objective examination, and score satisfaction with the telephone follow-up. RESULTS: We enrolled 420 pts: 215 for SUI in Group A, and 205 for POP in Group B. SUI recurrence was 19.1% and 11.6% at the telephone and office follow-up, respectively. De-novo urgency urinary incontinence rate was 7.5%. Telephone follow-up was able to detect POP recurrence and related symptoms. Tape and mesh extrusions were detected only at the objective evaluation: 1.9% and 4.4% respectively. No difference was found at the questionnaires. Satisfaction with the telephone follow-up was high. CONCLUSION: Due to the wrongly interpretation of de-novo urge urinary incontinence as a recurrence of SUI, a telephone interview may lose reliability in case of reported incontinence. Thus, telephone follow-up was feasible and reliable in women not reporting incontinence. In patients treated for POP the phone interview was a valid tool only in case of no-prosthetic surgery due to the absence of extrusion in these cases.
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Enrico Checcucci; Alessandro Crestani; Alberto Abrate; Francesco Esperto; Nicola Pavan; Cosimo De Nunzio; Antonio Galfano; Gianluca Giannarini; Andrea Gregori; Giovanni Liguori; Riccardo Bartoletti; Francesco Porpiglia; Roberto Mario Scarpa; Alchiede Simonato; Carlo Trombetta; Andrea Tubaro; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Cara L Grimes; Ethan M Balk; Catrina C Crisp; Danielle D Antosh; Miles Murphy; Gabriela E Halder; Peter C Jeppson; Emily E Weber LeBrun; Sonali Raman; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Cheryl Iglesia; Alexis A Dieter; Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan; Gaelen Adam; Kate V Meriwether Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Laura L Giusto; Samir Derisavifard; Patricia M Zahner; Jessica J Rueb; Luo Deyi; Li Jiayi; Fang Weilin; Raphael de Jesus Moreira; Alexander Gomelsky; Matteo Balzarro; Howard B Goldman Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 1.932