Prevalence of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Women Planning to Undergo Hysterectomy for Uterine Leiomyoma and Abnormal Uterine Bleeding.

Introduction: Leiomyomas are associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), but more specific characterization of their impact on LUTS is needed. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 202 participants (101 per group) who underwent hysterectomy for leiomyomas versus abnormal uterine bleeding nonclassified (AUB-N) from July 2015 to May 2019. Baseline demographics, leiomyoma characteristics, and presence of baseline LUTS were collected. The main objective was to compare the prevalence of LUTS between these two groups. Secondary objectives were to analyze the association between leiomyoma characteristics and the prevalence of LUTS. Results: There was no difference in baseline prevalence of LUTS between the hysterectomy for leiomyoma versus AUB-N groups (42.6% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.67). When examining the entire study cohort of participants, irrespective of hysterectomy indication, leiomyoma size >6 cm was associated with an increased prevalence of LUTS when compared with leiomyoma <6 cm (64.9% vs. 40.4%, p = 0.02), and specifically difficulty passing urine (p = 0.02), nocturia (p = 0.04), and urinary frequency (p = 0.04). When controlling for age, body mass index, parity, chronic pelvic pain, and diabetes, leiomyomas >6 cm remained significantly associated with the presence of LUTS (odds ratio 3.1, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-8.3) when compared with leiomyoma <6 cm. Presence of >1 leiomyoma was associated with urinary frequency (67.9% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.02) when compared with ≤1 leiomyoma. Anterior location and uterine volume were not associated with a difference in LUTS. Conclusion: LUTS are prevalent in those planning hysterectomy for leiomyoma and AUB-N. Leiomyomas >6 cm are associated with the presence of LUTS. Future studies should evaluate change in LUTS following hysterectomy for leiomyomas.

Patient Removal of Urinary Catheters After Urogynecologic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative urinary retention rates in the early postoperative period between home and office catheter removal. Secondary outcomes included pain, difficulty, satisfaction, likelihood to use again, and health care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a nonblinded, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial of women undergoing surgery for stress incontinence and prolapse from March 2021 to June 2022. Exclusion criteria were preoperative voiding dysfunction (need for self-catheterization or postvoid residual [PVR] greater than 150 mL), urethral bulking, and need for prolonged postoperative catheterization. Participants discharged with indwelling catheters because of an initial failed void trial were randomized 1:1 to home compared with office removal on postoperative day 3-4. For home removal, participants were instructed to remove the catheter at 7 am and to drink two glasses of water. If they had difficulty voiding 5 hours after catheter removal, they came to the office for a void trial. For office removal, participants returned for a backfill void trial with PVR assessment. Our primary outcome was rate of early postoperative urinary retention , defined as confirmed retention (PVR greater than half the voided volume) after catheter removal. Secondary outcomes were assessed at a 2-week call. Health care utilization (telephone calls and office visits) related to catheter issues was also assessed. At 80% power and α=0.05, we needed 100 participants (50/group) to detect a noninferiority margin of 11%. RESULTS: Among 117 participants, the home (n=59) and office (n=58) removal groups were similar in mean age (60 years vs 61 years), mean body mass index (29 vs 30), pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage 3 or 4, and proportion who underwent hysterectomy or apical suspension. Sling procedures were more common in the office group (45.8% vs 77.6%). For our primary outcome, the rate of early postoperative retention was 11.9% in the home group and 22.4% in the office group ( P =.13). Our predetermined noninferiority margin was greater than the upper bound of our 95% CI; thus, we conclude noninferiority of home removal. For secondary outcomes, the home removal group was more likely to report "no pain" ( P =.02) and "very likely" to use this method again ( P =.004). There were no differences in difficulty or satisfaction between groups. Number of nursing calls was not different ( P =.66); however, number of office visits was higher in the office group (median 0 [interquartile range 0-1] vs 1 [1-1], P <.001). CONCLUSION: Postoperative urinary catheter removal by the patient at home was noninferior to office removal when early urinary retention rates were compared. Participants in the home removal group had fewer office visits and reported low pain, low difficulty, and high satisfaction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04783012.

An evaluation of pelvic floor disorders in a public and private healthcare setting.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objectives were to determine whether a difference exists in the duration of pelvic floor disorder (PFD) symptoms among patients presenting to urogynecologists in two healthcare systems: private and county; and to elucidate differences in baseline characteristics, type of PFDs, symptom severity and management, stratified by healthcare plans. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective study was conducted including new patients presenting to three urogynecology clinics between March 2016 and May 2018: one private clinic (site A) and two public clinics in the same county healthcare system (sites B and C). Baseline data included age, race, BMI, parity, and comorbidities. Primary outcome was "time to presentation" defined as PFD duration in months. Secondary outcomes were symptom severity and PFD management, analyzed by healthcare setting and insurance type. RESULTS: A total of 1,055 private and 439 public patients were included. Patients in the public setting were younger (54 vs 61 years, p<0.001), largely Hispanic (76% vs 14%, p<0.001), of higher parity (4 vs 3, p=0.001), and had more comorbidities, with a predominance of county-funded healthcare plans. There was no difference in duration of symptoms between the public and private groups respectively (54 vs 56 months, p=0.94). Patients in the public setting had more severe urinary incontinence (3 vs 2 pads/day, p<0.001) and prolapse (stages 3-4, 71% vs 61%, p=0.004); however, they had lower rates of surgical management for stress incontinence and prolapse. Differences in fecal incontinence could not be evaluated owing to small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Public patients presented younger with more severe symptoms but had lower rates of surgery for PFDs traditionally managed surgically.

Barriers to Care Affecting Presentation to Urogynecologists in a Community Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate barriers to care for patients presenting to urogynecologists and determine how these barriers differ in private and public/county health care settings. METHODS: Standardized anonymous questionnaires were distributed from May 2018 to July 2018 to new patients presenting to a urogynecologist at three institutions: two private health care clinics (sites A and B) and one public/county hospital clinic (site C). Patients identified symptom duration, symptom severity, and factors inhibiting presentation to care from a list of barriers. Patients then identified the primary barrier to care. RESULTS: One hundred nine questionnaires were distributed, and 88 were submitted, resulting in an 81% response rate (31 from site A, 30 from site B, 27 from site C). In analysis of the private versus public setting, there was no statistical difference between age (58 years vs 57 years, P = 0.69), body mass index (28 vs 30, P = 0.301), symptom duration (24 months vs 16 months, P = 0.28), or severity respectively. When asked to identify the primary barrier to presentation, patients in the private setting stated they did not know to see a specialist (26.2%, P = 0.002), while patients in the public setting could not obtain a closer appointment time (22.2% vs 13.1%, P = 0.35. Additionally, patients in the public setting were more likely to cite lack of health care coverage as a barrier to care (18.5% vs 1.6%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study highlights barriers that can contribute to the disparity of care seen in our patient population. Efforts should be made to acknowledge and mitigate hindrances impacting access to care.