Characteristics associated with composite surgical failure over 5 years of women in a randomized trial of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.

BACKGROUND: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery in the Vaginal hysterectomy with Native Tissue Vault Suspension vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy with Graft Suspension (Study for Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial) trial, sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (hysteropexy) resulted in a lower composite surgical failure rate than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension over 5 years. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify factors associated with the rate of surgical failure over 5 years among women undergoing sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension for uterovaginal prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: This planned secondary analysis of a comparative effectiveness trial of 2 transvaginal apical suspensions (NCT01802281) defined surgical failure as either retreatment of prolapse, recurrence of prolapse beyond the hymen, or bothersome prolapse symptoms. Baseline clinical and sociodemographic factors for eligible participants receiving the randomized surgery (N=173) were compared across categories of failure (≤1 year, >1 year, and no failure) with rank-based tests. Factors with adequate prevalence and clinical relevance were assessed for minimally adjusted bivariate associations using piecewise exponential survival models adjusting for randomized apical repair and clinical site. The multivariable model included factors with bivariate P<.2, additional clinically important variables, apical repair, and clinical site. Backward selection determined final retained risk factors (P<.1) with statistical significance evaluated by Bonferroni correction (P<.005). Final factors were assessed for interaction with type of apical repair at P<.1. Association is presented by adjusted hazard ratios and further illustrated by categorization of risk factors. RESULTS: In the final multivariable model, body mass index (increase of 5 kg/m2: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.2; P<.001) and duration of prolapse symptoms (increase of 1 year: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.1; P<.005) were associated with composite surgical failure, where rates of failure were 2.9 and 1.8 times higher in women with obesity and women who are overweight than women who have normal weight and women who are underweight (95% confidence intervals, 1.5-5.8 and 0.9-3.5) and 3.0 times higher in women experiencing >5 years prolapse symptoms than women experiencing ≤5 years prolapse symptoms (95% confidence interval, 1.8-5.0). Sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft had a lower rate of failure than hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0; P=.05). The interaction between symptom duration and apical repair (P=.07) indicated that failure was less likely after hysteropexy than hysterectomy for those with ≤5 years symptom duration (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.9), but not for those with >5 years symptom duration (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5-2.1). CONCLUSION: Obesity and duration of prolapse symptoms have been determined as risk factors associated with surgical failure over 5 years from transvaginal prolapse repair, regardless of approach. Providers and patients should consider these modifiable risk factors when discussing treatment plans for bothersome prolapse.

Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (vaginal mesh hysteropexy) is an alternative, although in 2019 the Food and Drug Administration removed this mesh product from the United States market. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the efficacy and adverse events of these 2 procedures. STUDY DESIGN: At 9 clinical sites in the United States National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women requesting vaginal surgery for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a multisite randomized superiority clinical trial, comparing a sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (hysteropexy) with a vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (hysterectomy). Participants consented to remain masked to treatment assignment for the study duration. Study visits were conducted at 6-month intervals through 60 months. The primary treatment failure composite outcome (retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival modeling. Secondary outcomes included complications or adverse events, individual anatomic measures of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination, and presence, severity, and impact and bother of prolapse, urinary, bowel, and pain symptoms as measured by validated questionnaires. The 3-year published results suggested better primary outcomes with sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft, but the differences were not statistically significant (P=.06). This study reports the 5-year outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 183 women with a mean age of 66 years were randomized between April 2013 and February 2015; 93 were randomized to hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to hysterectomy. Notably, 175 were included in the trial, and 156 (89%) completed the 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome showed fewer failures for hysteropexy than hysterectomy through 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.94; P=.03), with failure rates of 37% vs 54%, respectively, resulting in a difference of -18% (95% confidence interval, -33% to -3%) at 5 years. With the exception of the Urogenital Distress Inventory, no group differences were demonstrated in patient-reported pelvic floor symptoms, prolapse symptoms, bowel function symptoms, general quality of life, body image, or pelvic pain. At their last visit through 5 years, 70% of participants (129 of 183) reported they remained masked to their treatment with no difference in masking between groups. Adverse events for hysteropexy vs hysterectomy included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 12%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft resulted in a lower composite failure rate than vaginal hysterectomy through 5 years. There were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes between groups. Our results suggest that this vaginal mesh hysteropexy procedure should be made available to patients.

Defining mechanisms of recurrence following apical prolapse repair based on imaging criteria.

BACKGROUND: Prolapse recurrence after transvaginal surgical repair is common; however, its mechanisms are ill-defined. A thorough understanding of how and why prolapse repairs fail is needed to address their high rate of anatomic recurrence and to develop novel therapies to overcome defined deficiencies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify mechanisms and contributors of anatomic recurrence after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (native tissue repair) vs transvaginal mesh (VM) hysteropexy surgery for uterovaginal prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter study was conducted in a subset of participants in a randomized clinical trial by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Overall, 94 women with uterovaginal prolapse treated via native tissue repair (n=48) or VM hysteropexy (n=46) underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging at rest, maximal strain, and poststrain rest (recovery) 30 to 42 months after surgery. Participants who desired reoperation before 30 to 42 months were imaged earlier to assess the impact of the index surgery. Using a novel 3-dimensional pelvic coordinate system, coregistered midsagittal images were obtained to assess study outcomes. Magnetic resonance imaging-based anatomic recurrence (failure) was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen. The primary outcome was the mechanism of failure (apical descent vs anterior vaginal wall elongation), including the frequency and site of failure. Secondary outcomes included displacement of the vaginal apex and perineal body and change in the length of the anterior wall, posterior wall, vaginal perimeter, and introitus of the vagina from rest to strain and rest to recovery. Group differences in the mechanism, frequency, and site of failure were assessed using the Fisher exact tests, and secondary outcomes were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Of the 88 participants analyzed, 37 (42%) had recurrent prolapse (VM hysteropexy, 13 of 45 [29%]; native tissue repair, 24 of 43 [56%]). The most common site of failure was the anterior compartment (VM hysteropexy, 38%; native tissue repair, 92%). The primary mechanism of recurrence was apical descent (VM hysteropexy, 85%; native tissue repair, 67%). From rest to strain, failures (vs successes) had greater inferior displacement of the vaginal apex (difference, -12 mm; 95% confidence interval, -19 to -6) and perineal body (difference, -7 mm; 95% confidence interval, -11 to -4) and elongation of the anterior vaginal wall (difference, 12 mm; 95% confidence interval, 8-16) and vaginal introitus (difference, 11 mm; 95% confidence interval, 7-15). CONCLUSION: The primary mechanism of prolapse recurrence following vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension or VM hysteropexy was apical descent. In addition, greater inferior descent of the vaginal apex and perineal body, lengthening of the anterior vaginal wall, and increased size of the vaginal introitus with strain were associated with anatomic failure. Further studies are needed to provide additional insight into the mechanism by which these factors contribute to anatomic failure.

Surgery for urinary incontinence in women: Report from the 6th international consultation on incontinence.

Urinary incontinence is a prevalent condition worldwide and causes a tremendous impact on a woman's quality of life. While conservative and non-surgical therapies are options for treatment, surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common. Options include colposuspension, slings (pubovaginal and midurethral), and periurethral bulking. While evidence supports each of these options in the treatment of SUI, each is associated with various rates of success and unique adverse event profiles. Urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) is initially treated with behavioral modification and pharmacologic means, with surgery reserved for those with refractory symptoms or significant complications from medication use. At present, intravesical onabotulinumtoxinA injections, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and sacral neurostimulation are all viable options for refractory UUI/overactive bladder. As with surgical interventions for SUI, each of these is, likewise, associated with unique outcomes and adverse event profiles. Herein, we summarize the findings and conclusions from the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) regarding surgical treatment of urinary incontinence in women.

Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy is an alternative option. Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy. Design, Setting, Participants: At 9 clinical sites in the US Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a randomized superiority clinical trial between April 2013 and February 2015. The study was designed for primary analysis when the last randomized participant reached 3 years of follow-up in February 2018. Interventions: Ninety-three women were randomized to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary treatment failure composite outcome (re-treatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes and adverse events, and were evaluated with longitudinal models or contingency tables as appropriate. Results: A total of 183 participants (mean age, 66 years) were randomized, 175 were included in the trial, and 169 (97%) completed the 3-year follow-up. The primary outcome was not significantly different among women who underwent hysteropexy vs hysterectomy through 48 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.38-1.02]; P = .06; 36-month adjusted failure incidence, 26% vs 38%). Mean (SD) operative time was lower in the hysteropexy group vs the hysterectomy group (111.5 [39.7] min vs 156.7 [43.9] min; difference, -45.2 [95% CI, -57.7 to -32.7]; P = <.001). Adverse events in the hysteropexy vs hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs 7%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, vaginal mesh hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension did not result in a significantly lower rate of the composite prolapse outcome after 3 years. However, imprecision in study results precludes a definitive conclusion, and further research is needed to assess whether vaginal mesh hysteropexy is more effective than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802281.

The female continence mechanism measured by high resolution manometry: Urethral bulking versus midurethral sling.

AIMS: Traditional technology to characterize urethral pressure changes during dynamic conditions is limited by slow response times or artifact-inducing withdrawal maneuvers. The 8F high-resolution manometry (HRM) catheter (ManoScan™ ESO, Covidien) has advantages of fast response times and the ability to measure urethral pressures along the urethral length without withdrawal. Our objective was to determine static and dynamic maximum urethral closure pressures (MUCPs) and resting functional urethral length (FUL) in women using HRM before and after transurethral bulking and compare results to other women who underwent midurethral sling (MUS). METHODS: We recorded rest, cough, and strain MUCPs and FUL in 24 women before and after transurethral bulking with polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique®) using the HRM catheter and compared these changes to HRM values from 26 women who had the same measures before and after MUS. RESULTS: At rest, MUCPs increased minimally after both urethral bulking and MUS (3 vs 0.4 cm H2 O respectively, P = 0.4). Under dynamic conditions there were statistically insignificant small increases in MUCP and these increases were markedly less than after MUS (cough: 1.5 vs 63.8 cm H2 O, P < 0.001 and strain: 11.5 vs 57.7 cm H2 O, P < 0.001). FUL increased by 0.5 cm after transurethral bulking (P = 0.003), and decreased by 0.25 cm after MUS placement (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism of continence after urethral bulking differs from MUS. While MUS increases dynamic MUCP, bulking may rely on increasing the length of the continence zone.

Preoperative Urodynamic Parameters (Valsalva Leak Point Pressure and Maximum Urethral Closure Pressure), Urinary Collagen and Plasma Vitamin D Levels as Predictors of Mid Urethral Sling Surgery Outcome.

PURPOSE: To determine the best predictor of the mid urethral sling outcome we calculated the AUC of ROC curves of preoperative parameters, including Valsalva leak point pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure, urinary NTx (N-telopeptide of crosslinked type I collagen) and plasma vitamin D values (D2, D3 and D2 plus D3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an ancillary study of TOMUS (Trial of Mid-urethral Slings) and the ValUE (Value of Urodynamics Evaluation) trial in which subjects underwent mid urethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Valsalva leak point pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure were measured in 427 subjects, whereas NTx, vitamin D2, vitamin D3 and vitamin D2 plus D3 levels were obtained from 150, 116, 115 and 116 subjects respectively. Outcome success was defined using identical outcome (subjective and objective) variables for all subjects. ROC curves with corresponding AUC values were compared. RESULTS: TOMUS and ValUE subjects were significantly different in age, body mass index, UDI (Urogenital Distress Inventory) scores. TOMUS subjects had a lower surgical success rate compared to ValUE subjects (66.3% vs 76.0%, p = 0.03). The AUC values of Valsalva leak point pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure, NTx, and vitamins D2, D3 and D2 plus D3 were 0.542, 0.561, 0.702, 0.627, 0.645 and 0.640, respectively. The AUC of NTx was significantly higher than the AUCs of Valsalva leak point pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary NTx was the best predictor of the mid urethral sling outcome. This test is not only noninvasive, it is also modifiable. Finding ideal modifiable risk factors prior to mid urethral sling surgery should be subject to future investigations.

Midurethral slings: evidence-based medicine vs the medicolegal system.

Midurethral sling procedures are minimally invasive surgeries for stress urinary incontinence that use a trocar system to place a narrow ribbon of polypropylene mesh under the midurethra. The peer-reviewed scientific literature on these procedures is abundant and midurethral slings are the most well-studied incontinence procedure ever. Systematic reviews of the literature demonstrate that midurethral slings are safer and more (or equally) effective as traditional procedures. The midurethral sling is the worldwide standard for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and >3 million procedures have been performed. The Food and Drug Administration and international scientific review agencies have consistently differentiated transvaginal mesh for stress urinary incontinence from transvaginal mesh for prolapse. In the recruitment of patients to participate in transvaginal mesh litigation, plaintiff lawyers have not made the distinction between stress urinary incontinence and prolapse procedures because more women have received midurethral slings than transvaginal mesh for prolapse by an order of magnitude. The litigation costs of defending their products have forced several companies that manufactured midurethral slings to leave the marketplace. It is not inconceivable that midurethral slings could become absent from the US market. If that happens, then US women with stress urinary incontinence will be harmed because they will not have access in this country to the best and safest stress urinary incontinence surgical procedure ever developed. It may be time for the Institute of Medicine or another comparable national agency to provide evidence-based recommendations on the midurethral sling.

The cost of preoperative urodynamics: A secondary analysis of the ValUE trial.

AIMS: Urodynamic studies (UDS) are generally recommended prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), despite insufficient evidence that it impacts treatment plans or outcomes in patients with uncomplicated SUI. This analysis aimed to calculate the cost incurred when UDS was performed as a supplement to a basic office evaluation and to extrapolate the potential savings of not doing UDS in this patient population on a national basis. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from the Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) trial, a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial to determine whether a basic office evaluation (OE) is non-inferior in terms of SUI surgery outcomes to office evaluation with addition of urodynamic studies (UDS). All participants underwent an OE; those patients who randomized to supplementary UDS underwent non-instrumented uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and a pressure flow study. Costs associated with UDS were calculated using 2014 U.S. Medicare allowable fees. Models using various patient populations and payor mixes were created to obtain a range of potential costs of performing UDS in patients undergoing SUI surgery annually in the United States. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty women were randomized to OE or OE plus UDS. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between the two groups. The per patient cost of UDS varied from site to site, and included complex cystometrogram $314-$343 (CPT codes 51728-51729) plus complex uroflowmetry $16 (CPT code 51741). Extrapolating these costs for US women similar to our study population, 13-33 million US dollars could be saved annually by not performing preoperative urodynamics. CONCLUSION: For women with uncomplicated SUI and a confirmatory preoperative basic office evaluation, tens of millions of dollars US could be saved annually by not performing urodynamic testing. In the management of such women, eliminating this preoperative test has a major economic benefit.

Measuring the impact of a posterior compartment procedure on symptoms of obstructed defecation and posterior vaginal compartment anatomy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in changes in obstructed defecation symptoms and posterior compartment prolapse between women who underwent posterior vaginal wall prolapse repair (PR) and those who did not. METHODS: This was a two-site prospective cohort study of women undergoing prolapse or incontinence surgery in which a PR was, or was not, performed at the discretion of the surgeon. Women were assessed using validated obstructed defecation questionnaires and standardized examination measures (including POP-Q, measurement of transverse gh, and assessment for a rectovaginal pocket and laxity) prior to pelvic surgery and 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Of 68 women who underwent surgery, 43 had PR. The PR group had higher obstructed defecation symptoms and greater posterior compartment prolapse at baseline. At 12 weeks, obstructed defecation symptoms had improved significantly more in the PR group than in the no PR group (all p < 0.03). Anatomic outcomes showed greater improvement in point Bp in the PR group (-3.4 vs. -0.7 no PR, p < 0.001) and resolution of the rectovaginal pocket (86 % vs. 42 %, p = 0.002). There were no significant changes in obstructed defecation symptoms or anatomic outcomes from baseline in the no PR group, while the PR group showed significantly improved obstructed defecation symptoms and anatomic outcomes after repair (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in obstructed defecation symptoms and posterior compartment prolapse were seen after PR, but not in women who did not receive PR. Obstructed defecation symptoms, Bp and rectovaginal pocket were the measures best able to demonstrate improvement after PR. We recommend the use of these measures to assess the impact of surgery in the posterior compartment.

A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair.

BACKGROUND: Women without stress urinary incontinence undergoing vaginal surgery for pelvic-organ prolapse are at risk for postoperative urinary incontinence. A midurethral sling may be placed at the time of prolapse repair to reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a multicenter trial involving women without symptoms of stress incontinence and with anterior prolapse (of stage 2 or higher on a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system examination) who were planning to undergo vaginal prolapse surgery. Women were randomly assigned to receive either a midurethral sling or sham incisions during surgery. One primary end point was urinary incontinence or treatment for this condition at 3 months. The second primary end point was the presence of incontinence at 12 months, allowing for subsequent treatment for incontinence. RESULTS: Of the 337 women who underwent randomization, 327 (97%) completed follow-up at 1 year. At 3 months, the rate of urinary incontinence (or treatment) was 23.6% in the sling group and 49.4% in the sham group (P<0.001). At 12 months, urinary incontinence (allowing for subsequent treatment of incontinence) was present in 27.3% and 43.0% of patients in the sling and sham groups, respectively (P=0.002). The number needed to treat with a sling to prevent one case of urinary incontinence at 12 months was 6.3. The rate of bladder perforation was higher in the sling group than in the sham group (6.7% vs. 0%), as were rates of urinary tract infection (31.0% vs. 18.3%), major bleeding complications (3.1% vs. 0%), and incomplete bladder emptying 6 weeks after surgery (3.7% vs. 0%) (P≤0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: A prophylactic midurethral sling inserted during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence at 3 and 12 months but higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health; OPUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00460434.).

A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery.

BACKGROUND: Urodynamic studies are commonly performed in women before surgery for stress urinary incontinence, but there is no good evidence that they improve outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence to compare outcomes after preoperative office evaluation and urodynamic tests or evaluation only. The primary outcome was treatment success at 12 months, defined as a reduction in the score on the Urogenital Distress Inventory of 70% or more and a response of "much better" or "very much better" on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 11 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 630 women were randomly assigned to undergo office evaluation with urodynamic tests or evaluation only (315 per group); the proportion in whom treatment was successful was 76.9% in the urodynamic-testing group versus 77.2% in the evaluation-only group (difference, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -7.5 to 6.9), which was consistent with noninferiority. There were no significant between-group differences in secondary measures of incontinence severity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, rates of positive provocative stress tests, voiding dysfunction, or adverse events. Women who underwent urodynamic tests were significantly less likely to receive a diagnosis of overactive bladder and more likely to receive a diagnosis of voiding-phase dysfunction, but these changes did not lead to significant between-group differences in treatment selection or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence, preoperative office evaluation alone was not inferior to evaluation with urodynamic testing for outcomes at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00803959.).

The female urinary microbiome in urgency urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the urinary microbiota in women who are planning treatment for urgency urinary incontinence and to describe clinical associations with urinary symptoms, urinary tract infection, and treatment outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Catheterized urine samples were collected from multisite randomized trial participants who had no clinical evidence of urinary tract infection; 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing was used to dichotomize participants as either DNA sequence-positive or sequence-negative. Associations with demographics, urinary symptoms, urinary tract infection risk, and treatment outcomes were determined. In sequence-positive samples, microbiotas were characterized on the basis of their dominant microorganisms. RESULTS: More than one-half (51.1%; 93/182) of the participants' urine samples were sequence-positive. Sequence-positive participants were younger (55.8 vs 61.3 years old; P = .0007), had a higher body mass index (33.7 vs 30.1 kg/m(2); P = .0009), had a higher mean baseline daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes (5.7 vs 4.2 episodes; P < .0001), responded better to treatment (decrease in urgency urinary incontinence episodes, -4.4 vs -3.3; P = .0013), and were less likely to experience urinary tract infection (9% vs 27%; P = .0011). In sequence-positive samples, 8 major bacterial clusters were identified; 7 clusters were dominated not only by a single genus, most commonly Lactobacillus (45%) or Gardnerella (17%), but also by other taxa (25%). The remaining cluster had no dominant genus (13%). CONCLUSION: DNA sequencing confirmed urinary bacterial DNA in many women with urgency urinary incontinence who had no signs of infection. Sequence status was associated with baseline urgency urinary incontinence episodes, treatment response, and posttreatment urinary tract infection risk.

Midurethral slings: which should I choose and what is the evidence for use?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Midurethral slings are currently the most commonly performed surgeries for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This review examines the pros and cons of the main types of midurethral slings that are available for the surgical treatment of SUI - full-length retropubic, full-length transobturator, and single-incision slings - to assist patients and physicians in choosing between them. RECENT FINDINGS: Comparative studies have shown that full-length retropubic and transobturator midurethral slings have similar efficacy but differ in their risk profiles; retropubic slings have higher rates of bladder perforation whereas transobturator slings have more groin pain and dyspareunia. When a certain type of single-incision sling is excluded from systematic reviews, single-incision slings appear comparable to standard midurethral slings. SUMMARY: Both full-length midurethral slings - retropubic and transobturator - are reasonable for the surgical treatment of SUI. The decision to choose one or the other should be individualized based on patient preference after counseling about the risks of each. More recent data suggest that the currently available single-incision slings may be comparable.

Introduction to a new technology for measuring urethral pressures: 3D high-resolution manometry.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This video introduces a 3D high-resolution manometry (HRM) system to the field of urogynecology. We demonstrate how to obtain and interpret dynamic urethral pressures with this measurement system and use it to evaluate pre- and postoperative women. METHODS: The 3D HRM catheter is ∼12 F; 11 cm of its length has pressure sensors with eight circumferentially distributed pressure-sensitive segments that collect and transmit individual pressure measurements to construct a 3D pressure map. In this video, we demonstrate the output display of the 3D HRM measurement system. RESULTS: Pressure output maps are shown for one woman with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and one with a history of SUI who underwent successful midurethral sling insertion. We also show a summary of 3D pressure-measurement patterns of 44 women who underwent pressure measurements to evaluate qualitatively the 3D pressure profile of the urethra in an effort to better understand pelvic floor and urethral sphincter physiology. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced HRM technology to measure urethral pressures under cough and strain conditions without withdrawal techniques provides new insights into the continence mechanism in continent and incontinent women and after continence surgeries.

Dynamic maximum urethral closure pressures measured by high-resolution manometry increase markedly after sling surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The premise of midurethral sling (MUS) surgery is to apply a tension-free vaginal tape in the midurethra that does not constrict the urethra at rest but stabilizes the urethra and prevents downward descent and opening of the urethra during stress maneuvers, but current technology has limitations in measuring urethral pressures during dynamic conditions. Our objective was to describe the change in maximum urethral closure pressures (MUCPs) after MUS surgery using an 8F high-resolution manometry (HRM) system that can measure urethral pressures during cough and strain maneuvers (ManoScan® ESO; Covidien) without migration or withdrawal limitations. METHODS: We measured rest, cough, and strain MUCPs in 26 women before and after retropubic or transobturator MUS for stress urinary incontinence using the HRM system. RESULTS: The objective success rate after MUS was 92.3 % based on postoperative cough stress testing. Mean resting MUCPs measured by HRM did not change after surgery (59.3 before vs. 59.7 cm H2O after surgery; p = 1.0). Mean cough MUCPs measured by HRM increased from 36.9 to 100.7 cm H2O (p < 0.001), and strain MUCPs increased from 35.0 to 92.7 cm H2O (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced HRM technology to measure MUCPs under cough and strain conditions without withdrawal techniques provides new insights into the continence mechanism after tension-free MUS: MUCPs do not change at rest but do increase significantly during cough and strain maneuvers.

A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the efficiency and efficacy of vaginal mesh attachment using interrupted, non-barbed, delayed absorbable sutures in comparison with a running, barbed, delayed absorbable suture during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS: Women undergoing LSC or RSC were recruited. Participants were randomized to at least six 0 PDS non-barbed interrupted sutures or at least six passes of a 1 PDS barbed suture (Quill™) on each anterior and posterior polypropylene mesh leaflet. The primary outcome was the time to attach the mesh to the vagina. The LSC and RSC groups were block randomized by suture type. Secondary outcomes included: (1) intraoperative surgeon assessment of satisfaction as measured using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), (2) postoperative POP-Q evaluation for anatomic failure, and (3) overall appearance of vaginal walls measured using a VAS. RESULTS: Of the 64 included subjects who were randomized, 32 had mesh attachment with the barbed suture (16 LSC, 16 RSC) and 32 had attachment with non-barbed sutures (16 LSC, 16 RSC). Among all the subjects (LSC and RSC), the non-barbed suture group had significantly longer mesh attachment times than the barbed suture group (42 vs. 29 min, p < 0.001). The non-barbed suture group had significantly better scores for intraoperative ease of suture placement, surgeon satisfaction with mesh appearance, and global satisfaction. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in anatomic failure between the suture groups or overall appearance of the vaginal walls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The barbed suture technique was 11 - 16 min faster for attaching mesh to the vagina than the non-barbed suture technique. Anatomic outcomes at 12 months were comparable between the suture groups. It is reasonable to use a running, barbed suture in minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.