Comparing Single-Incision Midurethral Sling with Bulking Agents for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence:Rationale for a Non-Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: Midurethral slings are considered the gold standard for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with an efficacy up to 80%. Another therapeutic option is the use of bulking agents, which create an artificial mass in the urethral submucosa, with an efficacy varying from 64% to 74%. Although bulking agents have a lower risk of complications than midurethral sling surgery, they are mainly used in case a midurethral sling is not an option or if midurethral sling surgery failed to cure stress urinary incontinence. In this study, we offer all patients with SUI in secondary care a choice between a single-incision midurethral sling procedure and treatment with a bulking agent. We want to examine patient preference and patient satisfaction for both procedures. We expect that offering both interventions in combination with standardized counselling will result in high patient satisfaction. Design: In this non-randomized controlled trial, 266 patients will be objectively counselled for both interventions, after which all patients will choose between single-incision midurethral slings and polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG), followed by the standard care procedure for women with SUI. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: From January 1, 2021, onward, all consecutive adult patients (between 18 and 80 years of age) attending the outpatient gynaecology department with objectively confirmed, moderate to severe SUI will be eligible for enrolment in this non-randomized study. The primary outcome is patient satisfaction at 1 year, measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement; secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction at 3 months, objective and subjective cure at 3 months and 1 year, adverse events, post-operative pain, and cost-effectiveness. Differences in outcome measures will be assessed through logistic and linear regression analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted with covariate adjustment using the propensity score. Results: No results are available yet. Limitations: The major disadvantage of this study design is the potential confounding bias. We intend to eliminate this bias by applying propensity scoring. Conclusion: By designing a non-randomized patient preference trial, we not only expect to demonstrate high patient satisfaction with both interventions but also provide insight into the possible role of PAHG-injections in the treatment of female SUI as a first-choice non-conservative treatment.</p

One-day versus 3-day suprapubic catheterization after vaginal prolapse surgery: a prospective randomized trial

For prolonged catheterization after vaginal prolapse surgery with anterior colporrhaphy, the optimal duration to prevent overdistention of the bladder remains unknown. We designed this study to determine the optimal length of catheterization. We conducted a prospective randomized trial in which 179 women were allocated to 1-day or 3-day suprapubic catheterization. The primary outcome was the duration of catheterization. Mean duration of catheterization and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the 1-day catheterization group. The number of successful voiding trials was higher in the 3-day catheterization group (90.9% versus 79.3%), but this did not reach statistical significance. The percentage of urinary tract infection did not differ significantly between the groups (4.5% versus 2.4%). Starting a voiding trial 1 day after vaginal prolapse surgery leads to shorter duration of catheterization and hospital stay

Treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a randomized multicenter trial comparing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (SAVE U trial)

Contains fulltext : 97471.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common health problem, affecting up to 40% of parous women over 50 years old, with significant negative influence on quality of life. Vaginal hysterectomy is currently the leading treatment method for patients with symptomatic uterine prolapse. Several studies have shown that sacrospinous fixation in case of uterine prolapse is a safe and effective alternative to vaginal hysterectomy. However, no large randomized trials with long-term follow-up have been performed to compare efficacy and quality of life between both techniques.The SAVE U trial is designed to compare sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher in terms of prolapse recurrence, quality of life, complications, hospital stay, post-operative recovery and sexual functioning. METHODS/DESIGN: The SAVE U trial is a randomized controlled multi-center non-inferiority trial. The study compares sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher. The primary outcome measure is recurrence of uterine prolapse defined as: uterine descent stage 2 or more assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination and prolapse complaints and/or redo surgery at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are subjective improvement in quality of life measured by generic (Short Form 36 and Euroqol 5D) and disease-specific (Urogenital Distress Inventory, Defecatory Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire) quality of life instruments, complications following surgery, hospital stay, post-operative recovery and sexual functioning (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire). Analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. Based on comparable recurrence rates of 3% and considering an upper-limit of 7% to be non-inferior (beta 0.2 and one sided alpha 0.025), 104 patients are needed per group. DISCUSSION: The SAVE U trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether the efficacy of sacrospinous fixation is similar to vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR1866

Hysteroscopy-guided transurethral resection for urethral exposure of mid-urethral slings

Introduction and hypothesis.: The mid-urethral sling (MUS) is a safe and effective treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but there is a long-term risk of exposure into the urethra. Although momentum has shifted from open vaginal repair to endoscopic approaches, research evidence is limited. Therefore, we present our experience with hysteroscopy and endoscopic scissors for the management of this complication. Methods:: This case series describes patients who underwent surgery to treat urethral MUS exposure. All surgical procedures were performed under local or general anesthesia, using a hysteroscope to locate and visualize the MUS, endoscopic scissors to release visible exposure, and forceps to remove any material. Patients were routinely asked about symptom relief at 6 weeks. Results:: Of the seven patients who underwent the hysteroscopic procedure, six needed a second session because mucosal bleeding or bulging caused poor visualization of the urethra. Six patients reported improvements after surgery. Of the four who reported recurrent SUI, two were successfully treated with a bulking agent. Although three of four patients who underwent cystoscopy during follow-up had residual MUS, all reported symptomatic improvement. Conclusion:: The hysteroscopic approach appears to be an alternative for treating urethral MUS exposure. Patients should be informed that the procedure can be performed under local anesthesia, but that multiple sessions or procedures may be needed. Future research should consider whether symptom relief or the absence of MUS at cystoscopy defines success

Evaluation of the long-term effect and complication rate of single-incision slings for female stress urinary incontinence

Objective: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of single-incision midurethral slings (SIMS) in real-life practice. Study Design: This retrospective, single-arm, patient cohort study was performed in a large Dutch teaching hospital, including 397 consecutive women who underwent a SIMS-procedure between 2009 and 2018. Data were obtained through questionnaires and patient record study. Subjective improvement was the primary outcome, defined as a Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) of ‘(very) much better’. Secondary outcomes were subjective cure rate (defined as a negative Urogenital Distress Inventory - item 4 ‘Do you experience involuntary urine leakage related to physical activity, coughing or sneezing?’), complication rate and sling failure (defined as the need for additional research or treatment for persisting stress urinary incontinence (SUI)). All data was analysed with a statistical significance level of 5%. Results: The mean follow-up time was 54 months. All patients received SIMS (Ajust® or Altis®). Of all respondents, 75% reported a (very) much improved burden of disease. The subjective cure rate was 61%. In 93 patients a total of 120 complications were registered. In 10% of patients a sling failure was observed, 76% of these failures appeared in the first two years post-surgery. Conclusion: This study showed that, in real life practice, SIMS are both effective and safe over a long period of time

Dutch women's attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Contains fulltext : 183838.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access