Assessment of patient satisfaction with home vs office indwelling catheter removal placed for urinary retention after female pelvic floor surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative urinary retention is burdensome for patients. We seek to improve patient satisfaction with the voiding trial process. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess patient satisfaction with location of indwelling catheter removal placed for urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: All adult women who were diagnosed with urinary retention requiring postoperative indwelling catheter insertion after undergoing surgery for urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse were eligible for this randomized controlled study. They were randomly assigned to catheter removal at home or in the office. Those who were randomized to home removal were taught how to remove the catheter before discharge, and were discharged home with written instructions, a voiding hat, and 10-mL syringe. All patients had their catheter removed 2 to 4 days after discharge. Those patients who were allocated to home removal were contacted in the afternoon by the office nurse. Subjects who graded their force of urine stream 5, on a scale of 0 to 10, were considered to have safely passed their voiding trial. For patients randomized to the office removal group, the voiding trial consisted of retrograde filling the bladder to maximum they could tolerate up to 300 mL. Urinating >50% of instilled volume was considered successful. Those who were unsuccessful in either group had catheter reinsertion or self-catheterization training in the office. The primary study outcome was patient satisfaction, measured based on patients' response to a question, "How satisfied were you with the overall removal process of the catheter?" A visual analogue scale was created to assess patient satisfaction and 4 secondary outcomes. A sample size of 40 participants per group were needed to detect a 10 mm difference in satisfaction between groups on the visual analogue scale. This calculation provided 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. The final number accounted for 10% loss to follow up. We compared the baseline characteristics, including urodynamic parameters, relevant perioperative indices, and patient satisfaction between the groups. RESULTS: Of the 78 women enrolled in the study, 38 (48.7%) removed their catheter at home and 40 (51.3%) had an office visit for catheter removal. Median and interquartile range for age, vaginal parity, and body mass index were 60 (49-72) years, 2 (2-3), and 28 (24-32) kg/m2, respectively, in the overall sample. Groups did not differ significantly in age, vaginal parity, body mass index, previous surgical history, or type of concomitant procedures. Patient satisfaction was comparable between the groups, with a median score (interquartile range) of 95 (87-100) in the home catheter removal group and 95 (80-98) in the office catheter removal group (P=.52). Voiding trial pass rate was similar between women who underwent home (83.8%) vs office (72.5%) catheter removal (P=.23). No participants in either group had to emergently come into the office or hospital due to inadequate voiding afterwards. Within 30 days post operatively, a lower proportion of women in the home catheter removal group (8.3%) had urinary tract infection, compared to patients in the office catheter removal group (26.3%) (P=.04). CONCLUSION: In women with urinary retention after urogynecologic surgery, there is no difference in satisfaction concerning the location of indwelling catheter removal when comparing home and office.

Sling plication for persistent stress urinary incontinence after midurethral sling.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence after midurethral sling placement is not uncommon. Treatment options include placement of a second midurethral sling, autologous fascial sling, retropubic urethropexy, or urethral bulking. Shortening of the sling by plication has also been suggested as an alternative option which may reduce operative time, cost, risk of trocar injury, and mesh burden. In this video, we aimed to demonstrate our technique and experience on sling plication. METHODS: The key steps of the procedure are as follows: (1) suburethral incision and sharp dissection to identify the sling; (2) mobilization of the suburethral portion of the sling; (3) plication with two interrupted, horizontal sutures placed 1 cm laterally on each side; (4) application of upward pressure while tying the sutures and tensioning the sling. In our experience, we have found this technique to be most successful for retropubic slings, especially when performed within 2-12 weeks of the initial surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Sling plication is an effective and minimally invasive option to treat persistent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling procedures. It avoids additional mesh burden or more invasive retropubic surgery and should be offered as a treatment option for appropriately counseled patients.