Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in women with suspected gynecological malignancy: a survey-based study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Understanding of pelvic floor disorders among women with gynecological cancer is limited. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in women with suspected gynecological malignancy before surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed of women aged ≥18 with a suspected gynecological malignancy who enrolled in the University of North Carolina Health Registry/ Cancer Survivorship Cohort (HR/CSC) from August 2012 to June 2013. Demographics were obtained from the HR/CSC self-reported data; clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Subjects completed validated questionnaires (Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms) to assess bladder and bowel function. RESULTS: Among 186 women scheduled for surgery for gynecological malignancy, 152 (82 %) completed baseline assessments before surgery. Mean age was 58.1 ± 13.3 years, and mean BMI was 33.6 ± 8.8 kg/m(2). The majority of subjects had uterine cancer (61.8 %), followed by ovarian (17.1 %) and cervical (11.1 %). At baseline, the rate of urinary incontinence (UI) was 40.9 %. A third of subjects reported stress UI, and one quarter reported urge UI. The overall rate of fecal incontinence was 3.9 %, abdominal pain was 47.4 %, constipation was 37.7 %, and diarrhea was 20.1 %. When comparing cancer types, there were no differences in pelvic floor symptoms. CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor disorders are common in women with suspected gynecological malignancy at baseline before surgery. Recognizing pelvic floor disorders in the preoperative setting will allow for more individualized, comprehensive care for these women

Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Pelvic organ prolapse is showing an increasing prevalence (3 – 50 %). The gold standard treatment of apical prolapse is sacrocolpopexy which can be performed via minimal access (laparoscopy or robotics) or open approaches. The aim of this review was to appraise the effectiveness of minimal access surgery versus the open approach in the treatment of apical prolapse. Methods: Keywords were searched in: CINAHL, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane MDSG Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS, and Google Scholar databases. Data up to 31 April 2014 were considered. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating all women who underwent minimally invasive sacropexy (MISC) and open sacropexy (OSC) were included. A data extraction tool was used for data collection. MISC was compared with OSC using narrative analysis and meta-analysis (RevMan) where appropriate. Results: MISC and OSC were compared in 12 studies involving 4,757 participants. MISC and OSC were equally effective in terms of point-C POP-Q measurements and recurrence rate. MISC was associated with a lower transfusion rate (odds ratio 0.41, 95 % CI 0.20 – 0.83), shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference −1.57 days, 95 % CI −1.91 – −1.23 days), and less blood loss (mean difference −113.27 mL, 95 % CI −163.67 – −62.87 mL) but a longer operating time (mean difference 87.47, 95 % CI 58.60 – 116.34, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: MISC showed similar anatomic results to OSC with a lower transfusion rate, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. The rate of other complications was similar between the approaches. Cautious interpretation of results is advised due to risk of bias caused by the inclusion of nonrandomized studies