Stress incontinence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery: mandatory or forbidden?

External validation of the de novo stress urinary incontinence prediction model after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Korean women: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

De novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may develop following pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Performing prophylactic continence surgery may reduce the risk of de novo SUI and subsequent continence surgery; however, it may increase the risk of complications. Therefore, many surgeons try to identify women at high risk for de novo SUI and perform continence surgery selectively. Recently, a model for predicting the risk of de novo SUI after prolapse surgery was developed using data from the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and midUrethral Sling (OPUS) trial; its prediction accuracy was significantly better than that of the stress test alone. However, few studies have verified its prediction accuracy in discrete populations. The aim of this study was to externally validate the prediction model for de novo SUI after prolapse surgery in Korean women.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 320 stress-continent women who underwent prolapse surgery for pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 2-4 anterior or apical prolapse and who completed a 1-year follow-up. Predicted probabilities by the de novo SUI online risk calculator were compared with observed outcomes and quantitated using the model's area under the curve and calibration plot. Subgroup analyses were also performed by the type of prolapse surgery.

RESULTS

The de novo SUI prediction model showed moderate discrimination in our study cohort; area under the curve (95% confidence interval) = 0.73 (0.67-0.78) in the whole cohort, 0.69 (0.61-0.78) in women who underwent native tissue repair or colpocleisis, and 0.74 (0.65-0.82) in those who underwent sacrocolpopexy. Calibration curves demonstrated that the model accurately predicted the observed outcomes of de novo SUI in women who underwent native tissue repair or colpocleisis but underestimated outcomes in those who underwent sacrocolpopexy. The predicted probability cutoff points corresponding to an actual risk of 50% were 40% in women who underwent native tissue repair or colpocleisis and 30% in those who underwent sacrocolpopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

The de novo SUI prediction model is acceptable for use in Korean women and may aid in shared decision-making regarding prophylactic continence procedure at the time of prolapse surgery.

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs

BACKGROUND

New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon.

SETTING

UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach.

FUTURE WORK

Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Short-term results of stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without midurethral sling

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the short-term results of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with and without midurethral sling (MUS).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted from July 2012 to December 2017. Women with stage 3 or 4 in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) who underwent LSC were recruited. Multichannel urodynamic studies were performed in all women. Assessment included pre- and postoperative POP-Q stages, urodynamic parameters, peri- and postoperative complications, and symptoms.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighteen patients met the inclusion criteria in total. A total of 19.5% (23/118) of them had concomitant MUS. The mean follow-up duration was 16.9 ±  16.0 (range 3-69) months. Meanwhile, 33.9% (40/118) of the patients were diagnosed with overt SUI, and 50% (20/40) underwent MUS. In the concomitant MUS group, the rate of having postoperative SUI was only 5% (1/20). Patients diagnosed with SUI and without concomitant MUS had a 45% rate (9/20), and 25% of them (5/20) received MUS later. Preoperatively, 16.1% (19/118) of the patients were diagnosed with occult SUI. Among the patients without anti-incontinence sling during prolapse surgery, 25% (4/16) of them complained about having SUI during the follow-up. However, none of the women required subsequent anti-incontinence surgery. Postoperative de novo SUI occurred to 13.6% (16/118) of them. None of the patients received further operation. Based on the preoperative and postoperative urodynamic studies in the combination surgery group, a significant improvement was observed in the pad test.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of LSC with MUS procedure is likely to be beneficial in selected patients.

Outcomes of Prophylactic Mid-Urethral Sling at the Time of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with and without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement for prophylaxis or treatment of preoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients without prior incontinence procedures who underwent RSC with or without MUS placement by 3 surgeons (JA, LA, KE) at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients had a MUS placed for either documented SUI or prophylaxis of SUI. We compared patient characteristics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and complications between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were identified. 58 (43%) had a MUS placed for documented SUI, 43 (32%) had prophylactic MUS, and 33 (25%) did not have a MUS placed. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the 3 groups. Patients who did not have a MUS placed had less estimated blood loss (76.4 vs 63.8 vs 36.9 mL, P = .018) but no difference in operative time (P = .408), length of stay (P = .427), or postoperative urinary retention (P = .988). A total of 4 (7%) patients who had a MUS placed for SUI had persistent SUI postoperatively. There were 2 (5%) patients who had a MUS placed prophylactically and 4 (12%) patients who did not have a MUS that developed de novo SUI.

CONCLUSION

In this series, we demonstrate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic MUS placement at the time of RSC. Randomized studies evaluating concomitant prophylactic sling at time of robotic sacrocolpopexy could further guide preoperative patient counseling and decision-making.

Management of Urinary Incontinence before and after Total Pelvic Reconstruction for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse with and without Incontinence

Background:

The effectiveness of an anti-incontinence procedure concomitant with prolapse reconstruction for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in preventing urinary incontinence (UI) after surgery remains controversial. Our study aimed to describe the incidence of pre- and postoperative UI for pelvic reconstructive surgery and evaluate the management of POP associated with UI.

Methods:

A total of 329 patients who underwent total pelvic reconstruction between June 2009 and February 2015 at a single institution were identified. These patients were divided into two groups (Group A [Prolift reconstruction]: n = 190 and Group B [modified total pelvic reconstruction]: n = 139). Data regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Chi-square and Student's t-tests were used for two independent samples.

Results:

A total of 115 patients presented with UI preoperatively. The average follow-up time was 46.5 months, with 20 patients lost to follow-up (6.1%). The cure rates of stress UI (SUI), urgency UI (UUI), and mixed UI (MUI) were 51% (30/59), 80% (16/20), and 48% (14/29), respectively. The cure rate of UUI after total pelvic reconstruction (80% [16/20]) was higher than that of SUI (50.8% [30/59], χ²= 5.219, P = 0.03), and the cure rate of MUI (48%, 14/29) was the lowest. The cure rate of patients with UI symptoms postoperatively was lower than that of those with symptoms preoperatively (9.1% [28/309] vs. 16.2% [50/309], χ²= 7.101, P = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of UI postoperatively between Groups A and B (P > 0.05). The cure rate of SUI in patients undergoing tension-free vaginal tape-obturator was not higher than that in those who did not undergo the procedure (42.9% [6/14] vs. 53.3% [24/45], χ²= 0.469, P = 0.49). There were no differences in the cure rate for POP or UI between these two types of reconstructions (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

No correlation between the incidence of UI and POP was identified. The results suggest that UI treatment should be performed after POP surgery for patients with both conditions.