Opioid-Limiting Pain Control After Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a multimodal opioid-limiting protocol and patient education intervention can reduce postoperative opioid use following transurethral resection of the prostate. METHODS: This prospective, non-blinded, single-institution, randomized controlled trial (NCT04102566) assigned 50 patients undergoing a transurethral resection of the prostate to either a standard of care control (SOC) or multimodal experimental group (MMG). The intervention included adding ibuprofen to the postoperative pain regimen, promoting appropriate opioid use while hospitalized, an educational intervention, and discharging without opioid prescription. Data regarding demographics, operative data, opioid use, pain scores, and patient satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were included, n = 23 (MMG) and n = 24 (SOC). Demographic and operative findings were similar. Statistical analysis for noninferiority demonstrated non-inferior inpatient pain control (mean pain score 2.5 MMG vs 2.4 SOC, P = 0.0003). The multimodal group used significantly fewer morphine milligram equivalents after discharge (0 vs 4.1, P = 0.04). Inpatient use was reduced but did not reach statistical significance (6.0 vs 9.8, P = 0.2). Mean satisfaction scores with pain control were similar (9.6 MMG vs 9.2 SOC, P = 0.32). No opioid prescriptions were requested after discharge. Adverse events and medication side effects were infrequent and largely similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an opioid-limiting postoperative pain protocol and patient education resulted in no outpatient opioid use while maintaining patient satisfaction with pain control. Eliminating opioids following a common urologic procedure will decrease risk of opioid-related adverse events and have a positive downstream impact.

Single Institutional Experience with Single Stage Sacral Neuromodulation: Cost Savings and Outcomes in a Contemporary Case Series.

PURPOSE: Sacral neuromodulation is traditionally performed in 2 stages. Studies have projected that 1-stage sacral neuromodulation is cost-effective if the conversion rate is 61.3% or greater. To our knowledge we present the first case series in the literature to evaluate the cost of 1-stage sacral neuromodulation. The objective of our study was to evaluate outcomes and analyze cost using our institutional experience with 1-stage sacral neuromodulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 consecutive 1-stage sacral neuromodulation procedures were performed at a self-insured, integrated health care institution. Cost data were determined using 2019 Medicare reimbursement rates for CPT codes 64581, 64585, 64590 and 64595. Median operative time was derived from actual institutional data. RESULTS: One-stage sacral neuromodulation implantation was performed in 15 patients. Median followup was 14.6 months (IQR 6.9-22.5). Of the 15 cases 14 (93.3%) were successful, defined as a 50% or greater improvement from baseline. Total reimbursement for the 15 patients who underwent 1-stage implantation was $329,430. If these patients had undergone traditional 2-stage implantation with equivalent outcomes, the overall reimbursement was determined to be $414,796. Single-stage sacral neuromodulation implantation provided a calculated total cost savings of $85,366 (p <0.01). Moreover, a projected 233 minutes in operative time was saved by performing 1-stage sacral neuromodulation (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential health care savings of a 1-stage sacral neuromodulation procedure. Moreover, 1-stage sacral neuromodulation may have other added benefits, such as reduced infection rates, patient satisfaction and other indirect cost savings, including reduced time off from work.

Outcomes in a contemporary cohort undergoing sacral neuromodulation using optimized lead placement technique.

AIMS: To evaluate factors associated with progression to stage 2 sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for refractory overactive bladder, urinary retention, or fecal incontinence using optimal lead placement techniques with curved stylet. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all consecutive stage 1 SNM lead placements at our institution between August 2014 and May 2017 using optimal lead placement technique with curved stylet. Patients with refractory overactive bladder, urinary retention, or fecal incontinence were enrolled. Patients with 50% or more symptom improvement on voiding diaries were offered stage 2 implant. Demographics, clinical, and surgical characteristics were compared for patients who underwent successful stage 2 implants versus those who underwent lead removal at the end of the stage 1 trial period. RESULTS: 127 patients underwent SNM during the study period. Motor thresholds of ≤2 mA in all four electrodes were achieved in 74% of patients (94/127). A total of 89.0% (113/127) of patients received stage 2 implants. The main indication for implant, specifically urgency urinary incontinence, was positively associated with progression to stage 2 implant. Male gender, history of pelvic pain and previous SNM were negatively associated with progression to stage 2 implant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the contemporary optimized lead placement technique resulted in low motor thresholds and successful progression to stage 2 SNM implant in the majority of our cohort. Predictive factors associated with success or failure may potentially guide decision making for therapeutic interventions and counseling patient expectations.

Opioid Prescription and Use in Sacral Neuromodulation, Mid Urethral Sling and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: An Educational Intervention to Avoid Over Prescribing.

PURPOSE: The opioid problem has reached epidemic proportions and the prescription of opioids after surgery can lead to chronic use. We explored prescribing patterns and opioid use after 3 pelvic floor surgeries (sacral neuromodulation, prolapse repair and mid urethral sling) before and after an educational intervention to reduce opioid prescriptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the amount of opioid medication prescribed to patients who underwent these 3 types of surgeries at our institution from June 2016 to May 2017. A telephone survey of patients was done to quantify opioid use after surgery and satisfaction with pain control. Prescribing recommendations were established based on these results and an educational intervention for clinicians was performed. We then evaluated changes in opioid prescription and use during the 6 months following the intervention. A multiple regression model was used to identify factors associated with variability in opioid use. RESULTS: Our retrospective review showed that the 122 patients were prescribed 149%, 165% and 136% more mean morphine mg equivalents than were actually used for sacral neuromodulation, mid urethral sling and prolapse repair, respectively. After the educational intervention there was a significant reduction in morphine mg equivalents prescribed for all 3 surgeries in 78 patients (p <0.001). Diabetes (p = 0.001), a chronic pain condition (p = 0.017) and rectocele repair (p = 0.001) were associated with increased opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that over prescription of opioids after pelvic floor surgery and a provider educational intervention resulted in a significant reduction in opioid prescribing without changing patient satisfaction with pain control.

Do Patients Discontinue Overactive Bladder Medications after Sacral Neuromodulation?

PURPOSE: Overactive bladder medications often have poor tolerability or lack of efficacy with many patients progressing to third line therapy such as sacral neuromodulation. Those treated with sacral neuromodulation may avoid the potential side effects of overactive bladder medications while achieving symptom improvement. We evaluated the postoperative rate of discontinuing overactive bladder medications in patients who underwent sacral neuromodulation of refractory overactive bladder. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried a prospectively collected, institutional review board approved database for patients who underwent sacral neuromodulation. Patients were excluded from analysis if the surgical indication was urinary retention or a sacral neuromodulation device was removed 1 year or less postoperatively. We assessed clinical characteristics, urodynamic parameters and filled overactive bladder medications using an external prescription database. Patient perceived postoperative outcomes were examined. Groups were compared by the Student t-test and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Of the 78 patients who met inclusion criteria 82.1% stopped and never restarted overactive bladder medications (the sacral neuromodulation only group). Of the patients 14.1% consecutively continued filling overactive bladder medications 1 year or more following surgery (the concurrent group). There was no difference between the groups in body mass index, gender, sacral neuromodulation revision, urodynamic parameters, the PGI-I (Patient Global Impression of Improvement) or patient perceived percent improvement. However, concurrent patients were significantly older than those who received sacral neuromodulation only (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of patients who progressed to sacral neuromodulation discontinued overactive bladder medications and received sacral neuromodulation as the sole treatment. A small portion of patients concurrently used overactive bladder medications following sacral neuromodulation for 1 year or more. However, outcomes were similar in the 2 groups. Sacral neuromodulation is a strategy to provide a successful outcome in refractory cases and yet avoid the potentially detrimental side effects related to overactive bladder medications.

Use of Third Line Therapy for Overactive Bladder in a Practice with Multiple Subspecialty Providers-Are We Doing Enough?

PURPOSE: Overactive bladder impacts more than 15% of the adult population. Compliance with medical treatment is low due to inadequate symptom control or intolerable side effects. Although third line therapies have improved the treatment of overactive bladder, many patients do not receive optimal treatment. We hypothesized that third line treatment use is higher among female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urologists, and we examined its use at our tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic medical record was queried for patients with overactive bladder seen in 1 year. The number of visits associated with an overactive bladder prescription and the number of patients who received third line therapy were determined and subcategorized by department. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery providers were considered separately. RESULTS: A total of 5,445 patients (8,994 visits) were seen for overactive bladder. Of all patients seen for overactive bladder 3.5% received third line therapy compared with 10.0% and 14.1% of those seen by urology providers and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery providers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of third line therapy was reported to be less than 5%. This rate is higher at our institution, which is likely due to multiple female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery providers. We also apply an algorithm that facilitates patient education on available options should first and second line treatments fail. Given the limited compliance with medical treatment for overactive bladder, we are likely missing a segment of the patient population who would benefit from third line treatment. Our data demonstrate an opportunity for urologists to improve the quality of overactive bladder treatment and subsequently improve patient quality of life.