Association Between Enlarged Genital Hiatus and Composite Surgical Failure After Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.

IMPORTANCE: The impact of a persistently enlarged genital hiatus (GH) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on prolapse outcomes is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: This secondary analysis of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized trial was conducted among participants who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. We hypothesized that women with a persistently enlarged GH size would have a higher proportion of prolapse recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: Women who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension as part of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized trial (NCT01802281) were divided into 3 groups based on change in their preoperative to 4- to 6-week postoperative GH measurements: (1) persistently enlarged GH, 2) improved GH, or (3) stably normal GH. Baseline characteristics and 2-year surgical outcomes were compared across groups. A logistic regression model for composite surgical failure controlling for advanced anterior wall prolapse and GH group was fitted. RESULTS: This secondary analysis included 81 women. The proportion with composite surgical failure was significantly higher among those with a persistently enlarged GH (50%) compared with a stably normal GH (12%) with an unadjusted risk difference of 38% (95% confidence interval, 4%-68%). When adjusted for advanced prolapse in the anterior compartment at baseline, the odds of composite surgical failure was 6 times higher in the persistently enlarged GH group compared with the stably normal group (95% confidence interval, 1.0-37.5; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: A persistently enlarged GH after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse may be a risk factor for recurrent prolapse.

Long-term Urinary Outcomes After Transvaginal Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair With and Without Concomitant Midurethral Slings.

IMPORTANCE: Many health care providers place concomitant midurethral slings during pelvic organ prolapse repair, yet growing evidence supports staged midurethral sling placement. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare urinary function after transvaginal uterovaginal prolapse repair with and without midurethral sling. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial (hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension vs mesh hysteropexy). Our primary outcome was Urinary Distress Inventory score (UDI-6) through 5 years compared between women with and without a concomitant sling within prolapse repair arms. Sling effect was adjusted for select clinical variables and interaction terms (α = .05). RESULTS: The sling group included 90 women (43 hysteropexy, 47 hysterectomy), and the no-sling group included 93 women (48 hysteropexy, 45 hysterectomy). At baseline, the sling group reported more bothersome stress (66% vs 36%, P < 0.001) and urgency incontinence (69% vs 48%, P = 0.007). For hysteropexy, there were no significant long-term differences in UDI-6 scores or bothersome urine leakage between sling groups. For hysterectomy, women with sling had better UDI-6 scores across time points (adjusted mean difference, -5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to -0.2); bothersome stress and urgency leakage were less common in the sling group (stress adjusted odds ratio, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.0-0.4]; urge adjusted odds ratio, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Treatment for stress incontinence over 5 years was similar in the sling (7.9%) versus no-sling (7.6%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year urinary outcomes of concomitant midurethral sling may vary by type of transvaginal prolapse surgery, with possible benefit of midurethral sling at the time of vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension but not after mesh hysteropexy.

Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation vs Sham Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence in Women: NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To determine whether percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is superior to sham stimulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI) in women refractory to first-line treatments. METHODS: Women aged 18 years or older with ≥3 months of moderate-to-severe FI that persisted after a 4-week run-in phase were randomized 2:1 (PTNS:sham stimulation) to 12 weekly 30-minute sessions in this multicenter, single-masked, controlled superiority trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline FI severity measured by St. Mark score after 12 weeks of treatment (range 0-24; minimal important difference, 3-5 points). The secondary outcomes included electronic bowel diary events and quality of life. The groups were compared using an adjusted general linear mixed model. RESULTS: Of 199 women who entered the run-in period, 166 (of 170 eligible) were randomized, (111 in PTNS group and 55 in sham group); the mean (SD) age was 63.6 (11.6) years; baseline St. Mark score was 17.4 (2.7); and recording was 6.6 (5.5) FI episodes per week. There was no difference in improvement from baseline in St. Mark scores in the PTNS group when compared with the sham group (-5.3 vs -3.9 points, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.3 [-2.8 to 0.2]). The groups did not differ in reduction in weekly FI episodes (-2.1 vs -1.9 episodes, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -0.26 [-1.85 to 1.33]). Condition-specific quality of life measures did not indicate a benefit of PTNS over sham stimulation. Serious adverse events occurred in 4% of each group. DISCUSSION: Although symptom reduction after 12 weeks of PTNS met a threshold of clinical importance, it did not differ from sham stimulation. These data do not support the use of PTNS as conducted for the treatment of FI in women.

Predicting outcomes after intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxina for non-neurogenic urgency incontinence in women.

AIMS: Develop models to predict outcomes after intradetrusor injection of 100 or 200 units of onabotulinumtoxinA in women with non-neurogenic urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). METHODS: Models were developed using 307 women from two randomized trials assessing efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA for non-neurogenic UUI. Cox, linear and logistic regression models were fit using: (1) time to recurrence over 12 months, (2) change from baseline daily UUI episodes (UUIE) at 6 months, and (3) need for self-catheterization over 6 months. Model discrimination of Cox and logistic regression models was calculated using c-index. Mean absolute error determined accuracy of the linear model. Calibration was demonstrated using calibration curves. All models were internally validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Median time to recurrence was 6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-12) months. Increasing age, 200 units of onabotulinumtoxinA, higher body mass index (BMI) and baseline UUIE were associated with decreased time to recurrence. The c-index was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.67). Median change in daily UUIE from baseline at 6 months was -3.5 (IQR: -5.0, -2.3). Increasing age, lower baseline UUIE, 200 units of onabotulinumtoxinA, higher BMI and IIQ-SF were associated with less improvement in UUIE. The mean absolute error predicting change in UUIE was accurate to 1.6 (95% CI: 1.5, 1.7) UUI episodes. The overall rate of self-catheterization was 17.6% (95% CI: 13.6%-22.4%). Lower BMI, 200 units of onabotulinumtoxinA, increased baseline postvoid residual and maximum capacity were associated with higher risk of self-catheterization. The c-index was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.76). The three calculators are available at http://riskcalc.duke.edu. CONCLUSIONS: After external validation, these models will assist clinicians in providing more accurate estimates of expected treatment outcomes after onabotulinumtoxinA for non-neurogenic UUI in women.

Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Fecal Incontinence in Women: The NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Study.

OBJECTIVES: High-level evidence for second-line noninvasive treatments for fecal incontinence in women is limited. We present the rationale for and design of the NeuromOdulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage trial, a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and validated sham stimulation in women with refractory accidental bowel leakage. METHODS: The rationale and goals for a 2-part study with a run-in phase, use of a generic pulse generator for PTNS and sham stimulation, masking, participant inclusion, primary and secondary outcome measures, and adverse event collection are described. A superiority design will be used to compare change from baseline in St. Mark's score after 12 weekly stimulation sessions between PTNS and sham. Responders to initial treatment (PTNS or sham) will be assigned to scheduled or "as needed" intervention for up to 1 year. Secondary outcome measures include incontinence episodes and other bowel events recorded in a 14-day electronic bowel diary, general and condition-specific quality of life instruments, adaptive behavior, global impression of improvement, symptom control, and sexual function. RESULTS: Sample size calculations determined that 165 participants (110 PTNS and 55 sham) would provide 90% power to detect greater than or equal to 4-point difference between PTNS and sham in change from baseline in St. Mark's score at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The methods for the NeuromOdulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage trial will provide high-level evidence of the effectiveness and optimal maintenance therapy schedule of a low-cost PTNS protocol in community-dwelling women seeking second-line intervention for refractory accidental bowel leakage.

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.

Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There has been a trend toward the use of ultra-lightweight mesh types for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. We hypothesized that ultra-lightweight mesh would have a greater proportion of composite anatomical pelvic organ prolapse recurrence than lightweight mesh. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies at two academic institutions from 2009 to 2016. Our primary outcome was composite anatomical prolapse recurrence, defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or retreatment with pessary or surgery, compared between ultra-lightweight (≤21 g/m2 [range 19-21]) and lightweight (>21 g/m2 [range 35-50]) mesh types. We assessed time to prolapse recurrence using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 1,272 laparoscopic (n = 530, 41.7%) and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexies (n = 742, 58.4%). Lightweight mesh was used in 745 procedures (58.6%) and ultra-lightweight mesh in 527 (41.4%). The lightweight mesh had longer median follow-up than the ultra-lightweight group (344 [IQR 50-670] vs 143 days [IQR 44-379], p < 0.01). There was no difference in composite anatomical prolapse recurrence between lightweight and ultra-lightweight mesh (54 [7.2%] vs 35 [6.6%], p = 0.68). Ultra-lightweight mesh demonstrated a shorter time to prolapse recurrence (p < 0.01), which remained significant on multivariate Cox regression (HR 2.38 [95% CI 1.47-3.87]). The lightweight mesh had significantly more mesh complications (43 [5.8%] vs 7 [1.3%], p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-lightweight mesh for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was not associated with a higher proportion of composite anatomical prolapse recurrence; however, it was associated with a shorter time to recurrence. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the clinical importance of this finding, particularly given the trade-off of more complications with lightweight mesh.

Does a Recent Urinary Tract Infection Increase the Risk of Postprocedure Urinary Tract Infection After Onabotulinum Toxin A?

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of postprocedure urinary tract infection (UTI) after injection of onabotulinum toxin A (BTX-A) in women who had a UTI within 30 days before procedure. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent their first injection of BTX-A from 2010 to 2016. Two cohorts were identified: (1) recent UTI (within 30 days before injection) and (2) no recent UTI. Our primary outcome was UTI within 90 days after BTX-A. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher exact or χ2 tests. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six women underwent their first BTX-A injection. Twenty-five (15%) had a recent UTI and 141 (85%) did not. Women with a recent UTI were more likely to have a subsequent infection (52% vs 26%, P < 0.01). However, in a logistic regression model, controlling for history of recurrent UTI, age, history of diabetes mellitus, periprocedural antibiotics, and urinary retention requiring catheterization, the association between having a recent UTI, and a subsequent UTI was no longer significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-6.50; P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Performing a first injection of BTX-A within 30 days of a UTI does not increase the odds of postprocedure UTI. Therefore, BTX-A therapy does not need to be delayed after a recent UTI.

Performance, acceptability, and validation of a phone application bowel diary.

AIMS: To assess performance, acceptability, external validity, and reliability of a phone application electronic bowel diary (PFDN Bowel eDiary). METHODS: Women reporting refractory accidental bowel leakage (ABL) were enrolled in a randomized, crossover trial evaluating paper versus eDiary documentation of bowel movements (BM) and fecal incontinence episodes (FIE). Events were characterized by the presence or absence of urgency and Bristol stool scale consistency. The eDiary entries were date/time stamped and prompted by twice-daily phone notifications. Women were randomized to complete up to three consecutive 14-day diaries in two sequences. Diary events were compared between formats using the Pearson correlation. System usability scale (SUS) assessed eDiary usability. The eDiary test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlations (ICCs). RESULTS: Paired diary data were available from 60/69 (87%) women 63.8 ± 9.8 years old with mean 13.2 BM per week and 6.5 FIE per week (nearly half with urgency). Among those providing diaries, adherence did not differ by paper or eDiary (93.3% vs. 95.0%). Notifications prompted 29.6% of eDiary entries, improving adherence from 70% to 95%. Paper and eDiaries were moderate to-strongly correlated for BMs per week (r = .61), urgency BMs per week (r = .76), FIE per week (r = .66), urgency FIE per week (r = .72). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC = .81 BMs per week, .79 urgency BMs per week, .74 FIE per week, and .62 urgency FIE per week). The mean SUS score was high, 82.3 ± 17.5 (range, 0-100) with 91.4% rating it easy to use, and 75.9% preferring the eDiary over paper. CONCLUSION: The PFDN Bowel eDiary correlated well with paper diary was considered easy to use, preferred to paper diaries, had high rates of confirmed real-time diary completion that obviated staff data entry.

Outcomes of native tissue transvaginal apical approaches in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Limited data exist comparing different surgical approaches in women with advanced vaginal prolapse. This study compared 2-year surgical outcomes of uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) in women with advanced prolapse (stage III-IV) and stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial comparing (1) ULS versus SSLF and (2) behavioral therapy with pelvic floor muscle training versus usual care. Of 374 subjects, 117/188 (62.7%) in the ULS and 113/186 (60.7%) in the SSLF group had advanced prolapse. Two-year surgical success was defined by the absence of (1) apical descent > 1/3 into the vaginal canal, (2) anterior/posterior wall descent beyond the hymen, (3) bothersome bulge symptoms, and (4) retreatment for prolapse. Secondary outcomes included individual success outcome components, symptom severity measured by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory, and adverse events. Outcomes were also compared in women with advanced prolapse versus stage II prolapse. RESULTS: Success did not differ between groups (ULS: 58.2% [57/117] versus SSLF: 58.5% [55/113], aOR 1.0 [0.5-1.8]). No differences were detected in individual success components (p > 0.05 for all components). Prolapse symptom severity scores improved in both interventions with no intergroup differences (p = 0.82). Serious adverse events did not differ (ULS: 19.7% versus SSLF: 16.8%, aOR 1.2 [0.6-2.4]). Success was lower in women with advanced prolapse compared with stage II (58.3% versus 73.2%, aOR 0.5 [0.3-0.9]), with no retreatment in stage II. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical success, symptom severity, and overall serious adverse events did not differ between ULS and SSLF in women with advanced prolapse. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01166373.

Does Mesh Weight Affect Time to Failure After Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare time to anatomic failure after robotic sacrocolpopexy with use of ultralightweight versus heavier weight mesh types. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy, from January 2012 to September 2016. We compared (1) sacrocolpopexy with ultralightweight mesh (≤20 g/m) versus (2) sacrocolpopexy with heavier weight mesh (≤35 g/m). Our primary outcome was time to anatomic failure, defined as recurrent prolapse beyond the hymen, or retreatment for prolapse with surgery or pessary. Secondary outcomes were compartment of failure and mesh exposure. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the hazard of failure based on mesh type. RESULTS: Of 461 patients, 248 (53.8%) underwent sacrocolpopexy with ultralightweight mesh and 213 (46.2%) with heavier weight mesh. Failures occurred in 37 women, with 21 in the ultralightweight mesh group and 16 in the heavier weight mesh group. Time to failure was statistically significant between groups (P = 0.03). Ultralightweight mesh had twice the hazard of failure within 3 years compared with heavier weight mesh (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-4.21; P = 0.03). Among failures, use of ultralightweight mesh was associated with almost 5 times the hazard of anterior compartment failure (hazard ratio, 4.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-14.27; P = 0.01). There was no difference in time to posterior failure. Of 17 mesh exposures, there were fewer in the ultralightweight mesh group, although this group was followed for less time (1.6% ultralightweight vs 6.0% heavier weight, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving ultralightweight mesh are more likely to experience earlier anatomic failure in the anterior compartment.

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.

Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Well designed, large comparative effectiveness trials assessing the efficacy of primary interventions for faecal incontinence are few in number. The objectives of this study were to compare different combinations of anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide, education, and oral placebo. METHODS: In this randomised factorial trial, participants were recruited from eight clinical sites in the USA. Women with at least one episode of faecal incontinence per month in the past 3 months were randomly assigned 0·5:1:1:1 to one of four groups: oral placebo plus education only, placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide plus education only, and loperamide plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback. Participants received 2 mg per day of loperamide or oral placebo with the option of dose escalation or reduction. Women assigned to biofeedback received six visits, including strength and sensory biofeedback training. All participants received a standardised faecal incontinence patient education pamphlet and were followed for 24 weeks after starting treatment. The primary endpoint was change in St Mark's (Vaizey) faecal incontinence severity score between baseline and 24 weeks, analysed by intention-to-treat using general linear mixed modelling. Investigators, interviewers, and outcome evaluators were masked to biofeedback assignment. Participants and all study staff other than the research pharmacist were masked to medication assignment. Randomisation took place within the electronic data capture system, was stratified by site using randomly permuted blocks (block size 7), and the sizes of the blocks and the allocation sequence were known only to the data coordinating centre. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008565. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, 377 women were enrolled, of whom 300 were randomly assigned to placebo plus education (n=42), placebo plus biofeedback (n=84), loperamide plus education (n=88), and the combined intervention of loperamide plus biofeedback (n=86). At 24 weeks, there were no differences between loperamide versus placebo (model estimated score change -1·5 points, 95% CI -3·4 to 0·4, p=0·12), biofeedback versus education (-0·7 points, -2·6 to 1·2, p=0·47), and loperamide and biofeedback versus placebo and biofeedback (-1·9 points, -4·1 to 0·3, p=0·092) or versus loperamide plus education (-1·1 points, -3·4 to 1·1, p=0·33). Constipation was the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event and was reported by two (2%) of 86 participants in the loperamide and biofeedback group and two (2%) of 88 in the loperamide plus education group. The percentage of participants with any serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Only one serious adverse event was considered related to treatment (small bowel obstruction in the placebo and biofeedback group). INTERPRETATION: In women with normal stool consistency and faecal incontinence bothersome enough to seek treatment, we were unable to find evidence against the null hypotheses that loperamide is equivalent to placebo, that anal exercises with biofeedback is equivalent to an educational pamphlet, and that loperamide and biofeedback are equivalent to oral placebo and biofeedback or loperamide plus an educational pamphlet. Because these are common first-line treatments for faecal incontinence, clinicians could consider combining loperamide, anal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and a standard educational pamphlet, but this is likely to result in only negligible improvement over individual therapies and patients should be counselled regarding possible constipation. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health.

Same-Day Discharge After Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare unplanned postoperative encounters in women discharged same day versus later after robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RA-SCP). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent RA-SCP at a tertiary care center January 2013 to September 2015. Women were divided into 2 cohorts based on their day of discharge: (1) same day or (2) postoperative day 1 (POD ≥ 1) or later. Our primary outcome was unplanned provider visits (clinic, urgent care, emergency department, or hospital readmission) during the 6 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcomes included unplanned postdischarge nurse or physician phone calls. Logistic regression models were created to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two women were included; 80 underwent same-day discharge versus 192 discharged POD 1 or later (187 on POD 1, 5 on POD 2). Women discharged same day were older (61.3 vs 58.5 years, P < 0.05), more likely to have a start time before noon (85% vs 67.6%, P < 0.01), received less intraoperative intravenous fluids (1153 mL vs 1536 mL, P < 0.01), had shorter procedures (237 vs 256 minutes, P < 0.01), and spent more time in the postanesthesia care unit (213 vs 158 minutes, P < 0.01). There were no differences in unplanned provider visits between women discharged same day versus later (18.8% vs 27.6%, P = 0.12). No differences were observed in unplanned clinic visits, emergency department visits, or readmissions. In logistic regression models, unplanned provider visits (odds ratio = 0.35, 95% confidence interval = 0.30-1.54) and phone calls (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% confidence interval = 0.54-2.58) were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day discharge after RA-SCP is safe and does not result in increased health care utilization (provider visits or postoperative phone calls).

Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Intraurethral Lidocaine on Urodynamic Voiding Parameters.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine whether intraurethral anesthesia decreases voiding efficiency (VE; voided volume/(voided volume + residual volume)) and impacts other urodynamic parameters in healthy female volunteers during urodynamic studies. METHODS: This was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of asymptomatic women aged 18 to 60 years. Subjects completed a visual analog scale and baseline questionnaires to assess pain and lower urinary tract symptoms, respectively. They performed an uninstrumented baseline uroflow, followed by physiologic filling to 250 mL or greater. Subjects were randomized to receive 5 mL of intraurethral aqueous gel or 2% lidocaine gel and then underwent a second uninstrumented uroflow. They then completed complex cystometry, urethral pressure profilometry, and pressure-flow studies. RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized subjects (12 placebo, 11 lidocaine) were included. Baseline uroflow VE was similar between the placebo and lidocaine groups. After study drug administration, VE was not different between groups (89.3 [85.9-93.9] vs 89.5 [82.5-91.7], P = 0.74). There were also no differences between groups in visual analog scale scores, sensation during cystometry, maximum urethral closure pressure, or micturition parameters (maximum detrusor pressure and detrusor pressure at maximum flow). The placebo group had a lower percentage of interrupted flow pattern (0% vs 36%, P = 0.02) and a lower rate of increased electromyographic activity during micturition (25% vs 73%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study of 23 asymptomatic women, intraurethral administration of lidocaine did not decrease VE compared with placebo. The lidocaine group had a greater percentage of interrupted flow patterns and increased electromyographic activity during micturition.

Concomitant Anterior Repair, Preoperative Prolapse Severity, and Anatomic Prolapse Outcomes After Vaginal Apical Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare anterior and overall prolapse prevalence at 1 year in surgical participants with or without concomitant anterior repair (AR) at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two surgical trials; concomitant AR was performed at surgeon's discretion. Anterior anatomic success was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification of prolapse point Ba ≤0 and overall success was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification points Ba, Bp, and C ≤0 at 12 months. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent (441/701) of the participants underwent concomitant AR and were older, more often postmenopausal, had previous hysterectomy, and had higher-stage anterior, but not apical prolapse. Anterior anatomic success was marginally but statistically better in the combined group (SSLF and ULS) with concomitant AR (82% vs 80%, P = 0.03). In subanalyses, the improvement in anatomic support with AR was observed only in the SSLF subgroup (81% vs 73%, P = 0.02) and mostly in the SSLF subgroup with higher preoperative stage (74% vs 57%, P = 0.02). Anterior repair did not improve success rates in participants with lower-stage prolapse or undergoing ULS. Overall success rates were similar to anterior anatomic success rates. Participants with higher-stage preoperative anterior prolapse had significantly lower success rates. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of clinical trial data, this analysis suggests an AR should be considered for women with higher-stage prolapse undergoing an SSLF. Preoperative prolapse severity is a strong predictor of poor anatomic outcomes with native tissue vaginal apical surgeries.

Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Utility preference scores are standardized, generic, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures that quantify disease severity and burden and summarize morbidity on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (optimal health). Utility scores are widely used to measure HRQOL and in cost-effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the responsiveness, validity properties, and minimal important difference (MID) of utility scores, as measured by the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol (EQ-5D), in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study combined data from 4 large, U.S., multicenter surgical trials enrolling 1321 women with pelvic organ prolapse. We collected condition-specific quality of life data using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). A subset of women completed the SF6D; women in 2 trials also completed the EQ5D. Mean utility scores were compared from baseline to 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Validity properties were assessed by (1) comparing changes in utility scores at 12 months between surgical successes and failures as defined in each study, and (2) correlating changes in utility scores with changes in the PFDI and PFIQ. MID was estimated using both anchor-based (SF-36 general health global rating scale "somewhat better" vs "no change") and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D score improved 0.050, from 0.705 ± 0.126 at baseline to 0.761 ± 0.131 at 12 months (P < .01). The mean EQ-5D score improved 0.060, from 0.810 ± 0.15 at baseline to 0.868 ± 0.15 at 12 months (P < .01). The ES (0.13-0.61) and SRM (0.13-0.57) were in the small-to-moderate range, demonstrating the responsiveness of the SF-6D and EQ-5D similar to other conditions. SF-6D and EQ-5D scores improved more for prolapse reconstructive surgical successes than for failures. The SF-6D and EQ-5D scores correlated with each other (r = 0.41; n = 645) and with condition-specific instruments. Correlations with the PFDI and PFIQ and their prolapse subscales were in the low to moderate range (r = 0.09-0.38), similar to other studies. Using the anchor-based method, the MID was 0.026 for SF-6D and 0.025 for EQ-5D, within the range of MIDs reported in other populations and for other conditions. These findings were supported by distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D and EQ-5D have good validity properties and are responsive, preference-based, utility and general HRQOL measures for women undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse. The MIDs for SF-6D and EQ-5D are similar and within the range found for other medical conditions.

Surgical Alteration of Genital Hiatus Size and Anatomic Failure After Vaginal Vault Suspension.

OBJECTIVE: To compare anatomic outcomes after native tissue vaginal vault suspension among women categorized by their preoperative and 6-week postoperative genital hiatus size. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in women who underwent native tissue vaginal vault suspension between 2005 and 2015. We defined a wide genital hiatus as 4 cm or greater and a normal genital hiatus as less than 4 cm. We compared three groups: 1) women with a wide genital hiatus preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively (persistently wide group), 2) women with a wide genital hiatus preoperatively but normal genital hiatus 6 weeks postoperatively (improved group), and 3) women with a normal genital hiatus preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively (stably normal group). Our primary outcome was composite anatomic failure at medium term, defined as either recurrent prolapse beyond the hymen or retreatment for prolapse with surgery or a pessary. Data were analyzed with appropriate bivariate analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 260 women, with 39 of 260 (15.0%) in the persistently wide group, 157 of 260 (60.4%) improved, and 64 of 260 (24.6%) stably normal. Composite anatomic failure was significantly more likely in the persistently wide cohort as compared with the other groups (persistently wide 51.3%, improved 16.6%, stably normal 6.3%, overall P<.01, significant for all pairwise comparisons). These results were consistent when examining the anterior, apical, and posterior compartments individually. In a logistic regression analysis, the persistently wide group was associated with a 4.4-fold increased odds of composite failure (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.41, 95% CI 1.99-9.76, P<.01) compared with the improved group and a 15.8-fold increased odds compared with the stably normal group (adjusted OR 15.79, 95% CI 4.66-53.57, P<.01). CONCLUSION: Women with a preoperative genital hiatus 4 cm or greater that is not surgically normalized after native tissue vaginal vault suspension are at significantly increased odds of anatomic failure in all compartments.

Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: early postoperative outcomes after surgical reduction of enlarged genital hiatus.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the decision to perform a concurrent posterior repair/perineoplasty at the time of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy is not standardized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare anatomic failure after robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy among 3 groups of patients categorized by their preoperative and postoperative genital hiatus size. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy, from January 2013 through September 2016. We defined a wide genital hiatus as ≥4 cm and a normal genital hiatus as <4 cm. We compared 3 groups: (1) wide preoperative and postoperative genital hiatus (persistently wide); (2) wide preoperative and normal postoperative genital hiatus (improved); and (3) normal preoperative and postoperative genital hiatus (stably normal). Our primary outcome was composite anatomic failure defined as either recurrent prolapse in any compartment past the hymen or retreatment for prolapse with either surgery or pessary. Our data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and χ2 test. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate for independent risk factors for anatomic failure among the 3 groups. P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 452 women with a mean age of 59.3 ± 10.0 years and a mean body mass index of 27.8 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Of the women with reported race, 394/447 (88.1%) were white. The genital hiatus groups were distributed as follows: 57 (12.6%) were persistently wide, 296 (65.5%) were improved, and 99 (21.9%) were stably normal. The stably normal group had less advanced preoperative prolapse (stage ≥3) than the other groups (P < .01). A similar percentage of patients among groups had a concomitant posterior repair/perineoplasty (P = .09) with a total of 84 (18.6%) women undergoing this procedure. There was a statistically significant difference in overall composite anatomic failure among the groups (P = .03). There was an increase in failure in the persistently wide group (14.0%) compared to the improved group (5.7%, P = .04) and compared to the stably normal group (4.0%, P = .03). In a logistic regression model, controlling for number of vaginal deliveries and posterior repair/perineoplasty, there was a 5.3-fold increased odds of composite anatomic failure in the persistently wide group (adjusted odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-19.1; P = .01) compared to the stably normal group. In a subanalysis of failure by compartment, there was an increase in failure of the posterior compartment in the persistently wide group compared to the improved group (8.8% vs 2.0%, P < .01), but not the stably normal group (3.0%, P = .12). There was not a statistically significant difference in failure of the combined apical and anterior compartments among groups (P = .29). CONCLUSION: Surgical reduction of an enlarged preoperative genital hiatus decreases early composite anatomic failure, after robotic sacrocolpopexy, specifically related to the posterior compartment. Studies investigating the correlation of intraoperative measurement of genital hiatus to postoperative genital hiatus are needed to help clinicians determine who may benefit from a concomitant posterior repair/perineoplasty at the time of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

American Urogynecologic Society Prolapse Consensus Conference Summary Report.

OBJECTIVES: The 2016 American Urogynecologic Society Prolapse Consensus Conference brought together thought leaders in the field of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The goal was to identify critical areas of need for future research. This article summarizes the findings. METHODS: Prior to the conference, 5 major focus areas were identified. Focus areas were explored over the 2-day conference. Clinicians, clinical and basic science researchers, and representatives from government agencies, industry, patient advocacy groups, and the public convened to identify the major gaps in knowledge in each of these focus areas. RESULTS: The 5 major topics were as follows: (1) mechanistic research on pelvic supportive structures and how these are altered with pregnancy, delivery, and aging; (2) novel prostheses or implants that address pathophysiology and provide mechanical support; (3) large-scale community-based research; (4) clinical trials to optimize outcomes after POP surgery; and (5) evidence-based quality measures for POP outcomes. Key recommendations were made for each topic. CONCLUSIONS: Critical gaps in our knowledge were identified. These limit scientific discovery across all 5 topic areas. Further scientific progress would be advanced by (1) developing a standardized group of POP outcomes and quality measures for large trials and community-based research, (2) creating specimen biorepositories that are integrated with robust clinical data, and (3) developing collaborative teams with expertise from a variety of disciplines, convened to tackle our most challenging and complex scientific questions.