Predicting the development of stress urinary incontinence 3 years after hysterectomy

We aimed to develop a prediction rule to predict the individual risk to develop stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after hysterectomy. Prospective observational study with 3-year follow-up among women who underwent abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy for benign conditions, excluding vaginal prolapse, and who did not report SUI before surgery (n = 183). The presence of SUI was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Significant prognostic factors for de novo SUI were BMI (OR 1.1 per kg/m(2), 95% CI 1.0-1.2), younger age at time of hysterectomy (OR 0.9 per year, 95% CI 0.8-1.0) and vaginal hysterectomy (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.2). Using these variables, we developed the following rule to predict the risk of developing SUI: 32 + BMI-age + (7.5 × route of surgery). We defined a prediction rule that can be used to counsel patients about their individual risk on developing SUI following hysterectom

Protocol for the CUPIDO trials; multicenter randomized controlled trials to assess the value of combining prolapse surgery and incontinence surgery in patients with genital prolapse and evident stress incontinence (CUPIDO I) and in patients with genital prolapse and occult stress incontinence (CUPIDO II)

Background: About 40% of all patients with genital prolapse report stress-incontinence. In about half of the 60% patients that do not report stress-incontinence, occult urinary stress-incontinence can be detected. In these patients stress-incontinence is masked due to kinking or compression of the urethra by the prolapse. In case surgical correction is indicated there are two strategies to manage patients with combined prolapse and (occult) stress incontinence. This strategy is either (i) a combination of prolapse surgery and stress-incontinence surgery or (ii) to correct the prolapse first and evaluate afterwards whether additional stress-incontinence surgery is indicated. The advantage of combining prolapse and stress-incontinence surgery is that only few patients report stress-incontinence following such combination. However, this combination has been associated with an increased risk on complications, of which the development of obstructive micturition symptoms, overactive bladder symptoms and bladder retention are the most important ones. Furthermore, combining two procedures may be unnecessary as performing only prolapse surgery may cure stress-incontinence In the randomized CUPIDO trials both strategies are compared in patients with prolapse and evident stress incontinence (CUPIDO I trial) and in patients with prolapse and occult stress incontinence (CUPIDO II trial). Methods/Design: The CUPIDO trials are two multicenter randomized controlled trials in which women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or occult stress urinary incontinence (OSUI) are randomized to prolapse surgery combined with anti incontinence surgery (concomitant surgery) or to prolapse surgery only. Patients with at least stage 2 POP are eligible, women with evident SUI are randomized in CUPIDO I. Patients without SUI are eligible for CUPIDO II and will have urodynamic evaluation or a standardized redression test. Women with OSUI are randomized, women without OSUI are followed up but not randomized. The primary outcome measure is absence of SUI twelve months after surgery. Furthermore, economic evaluations are conducted, and the effectiveness of urodynamic investigation is evaluated against a non-invasive way to determine SUI in women with POP. A total of 450 women will be included in the study

The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication

Item does not contain fulltextINTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study is to evaluate cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) and compare it to vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication procedure with special regard to the middle compartment. METHODS: Consecutive women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent either vaginal hysterectomy or a modified Manchester procedure were included. Assessments were made preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, including physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantification standardised questionnaires (incontinence impact questionnaire, urogenital distress inventory, and defaecatory distress inventory). RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2007, 156 patients were included. Ninety-eight patients returned for a 1-year follow-up. In the modified Manchester group, we found no middle compartment recurrence versus two (4%) in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Anterior and posterior compartment prolapse recurrences (stage >or=2) were similar (approximately 50%). Considering operating time and blood loss, modified Manchester was more favourable. There was no difference in the pre- and postoperative subjective scores. The overall functional outcome was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: We found an excellent performance of both procedures regarding middle compartment recurrences

Midline fascial plication under continuous digital transrectal control: which factors determine anatomic outcome?

Contains fulltext : 88897.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to report anatomic and functional outcome of midline fascial plication under continuous digital transrectal control and to identify predictors of anatomic failure. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort. Anatomic success defined as POP-Q stage or= II underwent midline fascial plication under continuous digital transrectal control. Median follow-up was 14 months (12-35 months), and anatomic success was 80.3% (95% CI 75-86). Independent predictors of failure were posterior compartment POP stage >or= III [OR 8.7 (95% CI 2.7-28.1)] and prior colposuspension [OR 5.6 (95% CI 1.1-27.8)]. Sixty-three percent of patients bothered by obstructed defaecation experienced relief after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic and functional outcomes were good. Risk factors for anatomic failure were initial size of posterior POP (stage >or= III) and prior colposuspension.1 juni 201

Functional outcome after sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine descensus

The study aimed to evaluate urogenital symptoms, defecatory symptoms and quality of life before and after a sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Seventy-two women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were treated with sacrospinous hysteropexy. Before and after surgery, urogenital and defecatory symptoms and quality of life were assessed with a validated questionnaire. Anatomical outcome was assessed by means of pelvic examination before and after surgery. The mean follow-up time was 12.7 months. Scores on all domains of urogenital symptoms and defecatory symptoms, except for the pain and fecal incontinence domain, improved significantly. Also, quality of life improved on all domains. No major complications were encountered

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

The MiniArc sling for female stress urinary incontinence: clinical results after 1-year follow-up

Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc