Outcomes of a single trigone-only vs. 20 trigone-sparing injections of OnabotulinumtoxinA for refractory overactive bladder (OAB).

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and durability of a single intravesical trigonal-only versus 20 trigone-sparing injections of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BTA) for refractory OAB. METHODS: A chart review of all idiopathic OAB patients treated with BTA from January 2016 to December 2018 was performed. Outcomes measures included: inter-injection interval, post-void residual (PVR), urinary tract infections (UTI), urinary retention requiring catheterization, and procedure time (min). Statistical analyses were performed using independent sample t-tests. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable for the two groups, data on 69 treatments (19 patients trigone-only) were compared to 105 treatments (26 patients trigone-sparing). There were no differences in the inter-injection intervals or rates of UTI. The trigone-only group exhibited a lower mean PVR (113 ml vs 160 ml, p < 0.02), lower proportion with PVR > 150 ml (23% vs. 39%, p < 0.03), lower rate of urinary retention (5.3% vs. 17.4%, p < 0.02), and shorter procedure time (4.3 min vs. 5.7 min, p < 0.01). There were no cases of vesico-ureteral reflux. CONCLUSION: While interpretation remains speculative, the results of this observational study suggest that a single trigone-only injection appears to be as safe and durable as multiple trigone-sparing injections but maybe quicker to perform and appears to have a lower impact on voiding function. Larger series and adequately powered prospective randomized clinical trials are warranted to validate the findings of this pilot study.

Does Attorney Advertising Influence Patient Perceptions of Pelvic Mesh?

OBJECTIVE: To measure the relative influence of attorney advertising on patient perceptions of pelvic mesh compared with a history of surgery and a first urology visit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 52-item survey was administered to 170 female patients in 2 urology offices between 2014 and 2016. Multiple survey items were combined to form scales for benefit and risk perceptions of pelvic mesh, perceptions of the advertising, attitudes toward pelvic mesh, and knowledge of pelvic mesh and underlying medical conditions. Data were analyzed using hierarchical linear regression models. RESULTS: Exposure to attorney advertising was quite high; 88% reported seeing a mesh-related attorney advertisement in the last 6 months. Over half of patients reported seeing attorney advertisements more than once per week. A history of prior mesh implant surgery was the strongest predictor of benefit and risk perceptions of pelvic mesh. Exposure to attorney advertising was associated with higher risk perceptions but did not significantly affect perceptions of benefits. Past urologist visits increased perceptions of benefits but had no effect on risk perceptions. CONCLUSION: Attorney advertising appears to have some influence on risk perceptions, but personal experience and discussions with a urogynecologist or urologist also influence patient perceptions. Implications, limitations, and future research are discussed.