Medium-Term Outcomes of Conservative and Surgical Treatments for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Medicare Claims Analysis: Developed by the AUGS Payment Reform Committee.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the 3- to 5-year retreatment outcomes for conservatively and surgically treated urinary incontinence (UI) in a population of women 66 years and older. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 5% Medicare data to evaluate UI retreatment outcomes of women undergoing physical therapy (PT), pessary treatment, or sling surgery. The data set used inpatient, outpatient, and carrier claims from 2008 to 2016 in women 66 years and older with fee-for-service coverage. Treatment failure was defined as receiving another UI treatment (pessary, PT, sling, Burch urethropexy, or urethral bulking) or repeat sling. A secondary analysis was performed where additional treatment courses of PT or pessary were also considered a treatment failure. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the time from treatment initiation to retreatment. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2013, 13,417 women were included with an index UI treatment, and follow-up continued through 2016. In this cohort, 41.4% received pessary treatment, 31.8% received PT, and 26.8% underwent sling surgery. In the primary analysis, pessaries had the lowest treatment failure rate compared with PT (P<0.001) and sling surgery (P<0.001; survival probability, 0.94 [pessary], 0.90 [PT], 0.88 [sling]). In the analysis where retreatment with PT or a pessary was considered a failure, sling surgery had the lowest retreatment rate (survival probability, 0.58 [pessary], 0.81 [PT], 0.88 [sling]; P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In this administrative database analysis, there was a small but statistically significant difference in treatment failure among women undergoing sling surgery, PT, or pessary treatment, but pessary use was commonly associated with the need for repeat pessary fittings.

Effect of COVID-19 on Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship Education and Training.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a noticeable disruption in national medical and surgical care, including medical training. OBJECTIVES: We designed a survey to examine the educational effect of the pandemic on female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) training and secondarily to identify areas for innovation and opportunity in FPMRS fellowship training. STUDY DESIGN: We used an online survey, approved by the American Urogynecologic Society Scientific Committee and distributed it to FPMRS fellows with responses obtained and stored in REDCap. Demographic data, educational and surgical experiences, the implications of the changes, and data regarding working from home were collected. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 88 fellows, with 92% of respondents being obstetrics and gynecology- based. All 10 geographic regions had at least one response. Six regions had a 50% or greater redeployment rate. Only 16% of respondents were not redeployed or on-call to be redeployed. Eighty-five percent of the ob/gyn fellow redeployments were within their home department. There was no relationship between training region and redeployment. Only 31.7% of the respondents continued to perform any FPMRS surgery. Approximately 35% of the fellows desired the opportunity for surgical simulation training because surgical cases were reduced.No relationship was seen between either redeployment status and needs (P = 0.087-0.893) or difficulties (P = 0.092-0.864) nor training location and needs (P = 0.376-0.935) or difficulties (P = 0.110-0.921). CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate of redeployment among fellows; however, this was not associated with their reported needs and difficulties. The FPMRS-related surgical experience was affected during this time, and the fellows desired increased surgical simulation training.

Incontinence rates after midurethral sling revision for vaginal exposure or pain.

BACKGROUND: Midurethral slings have become the preferred surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence. Midline transection of midurethral sling for dysfunctional voiding is an effective treatment and also has a low rate of recurrent stress incontinence. Recurrent stress incontinence after sling revision for pain and mesh exposure has not been well defined. It is therefore difficult to counsel patients on risk of recurrent stress incontinence when sling revision is performed for pain or mesh exposure. OBJECTIVE: We examined the rate of postoperative stress incontinence after midurethral sling revision for the indication of mesh exposure or pain, as well as postoperative pain and urinary urgency. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort of 245 patients undergoing a vaginal midurethral sling revision in a 10-year period for the indication of mesh exposure or pain. Preoperative indication for revision, baseline characteristics, and preoperative reports of stress incontinence, pain, and urgency were collected. The type of sling revision was then categorized into partial or complete removal. A partial removal of the sling was defined as removing only the portion of sling exposed or causing pain. A complete removal of the sling was defined as vaginal removal of sling laterally out to the pubic rami. Subjective reports of stress incontinence, pain, and urgency at short-term (16 weeks) and long-term (>16 weeks) follow-up visits were gathered. The primary outcome of the study was recurrent stress incontinence. RESULTS: In our cohort of 245 women who underwent midurethral sling revision, 94 patients had removal for mesh exposure (36 partial and 58 complete) and 151 had removal for pain (25 partial and 126 complete). All patients had a short-term follow-up with a mean time of 5.9 ± 2.8 weeks and 69% patients had long-term follow-up with a mean time of 29.1 ± 17.7 weeks. No differences were seen in preoperative reports of stress incontinence, urgency, or pain in either group. In the patients with revision for mesh exposure with no preoperative stress incontinence, there was greater postoperative stress incontinence with complete vs partial removal of sling at short-term (14% vs 42%, P = .03) and long-term (7% vs 59%, P = .003) follow-up. In the patients with revision for pain with no preoperative stress incontinence, there was no statistically significant difference in recurrent stress incontinence with complete sling removal at long-term follow-up (22% vs 56%, P = .07). In the patients with midurethral sling revision for pain, 72% of partial and 76% of complete sling removal had resolution of pain postoperatively (P = .66). No difference was seen in postoperative reports of urgency or pain improvement in either group between partial or complete sling removal. CONCLUSION: In women undergoing midurethral sling revision for mesh exposure, complete sling removal resulted in higher recurrent stress incontinence compared to partial sling removal. For the indication of pain, both partial and complete sling removal improved pain in the majority of patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in recurrent stress incontinence.

Postoperative pain outcomes after transvaginal mesh revision.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although the current literature discusses mesh complications including pain, as well as suggesting different techniques for removing mesh, there is little literature regarding pain outcomes after surgical removal or revision. The purpose of this study is to determine if surgical removal or revision of vaginal mesh improves patient's subjective complaints of pelvic pain associated with original placement of mesh. METHODS: After obtaining approval from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board, a retrospective review of female patients with pain secondary to previous mesh placement who underwent excision or revision of vaginal mesh from January 2000 to August 2012 was performed. Patient age, relevant medical history including menopause status, previous hysterectomy, smoking status, and presence of diabetes, fibromyalgia, interstitial cystitis, and chronic pelvic pain, was obtained. Patients' postoperative pain complaints were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 481 patients who underwent surgery for mesh revision, removal or urethrolysis, 233 patients met our inclusion criteria. One hundred and sixty-nine patients (73 %) reported that their pain improved, 19 (8 %) reported that their pain worsened, and 45 (19 %) reported that their pain remained unchanged after surgery. Prior history of chronic pelvic pain was associated with increased risk of failure of the procedure to relieve pain (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.12-0.64, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Excision or revision of vaginal mesh appears to be effective in improving patients' pain symptoms most of the time. Patients with a history of chronic pelvic pain are at an increased risk of no improvement or of worsening pain.

Factors associated with exposure of transvaginally placed polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study evaluates potential risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal placement of polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse requiring reoperation. METHODS: We performed a case-control study. Cases had mesh exposure requiring surgical revision; controls had no mesh exposures and were chosen for similar surgical date and type of mesh. RESULTS: We identified 48 cases and 48 controls. The adjusted odds ratio of having a bleeding complication at the time of mesh implantation was 7.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-35.66], smokers versus nonsmokers was 3.17 (95% CI 0.59-17.12), and being 1 year older was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-1.0), among women with mesh exposure. CONCLUSIONS: We identified bleeding complications at the time of mesh implantation as a risk factor for mesh exposure requiring reoperation. Despite being one of the largest studies on this topic, our data were inconclusive regarding the impact of other possible factors on mesh exposure.

Measurement of pelvic floor muscular strength with the Colpexin pull test: a comparative study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study is to compare the Colpexin pull test (CPT) with the Oxford muscle grading scale (OMGS) in assessing pelvic floor muscle strength. METHODS: In phase 1, 15 asymptomatic women underwent OMGS and CPT using three different spheres to select the ideal size. CPT values as well as patient/examiner comfort and ease of CPT performance were recorded. In phase 2, 30 women with stress urinary incontinence underwent CPT and OMGS by two examiners during two separate sessions. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: In phase 1, the 36-mm sphere was selected based on resting (p < 0.001), contraction CPT (p < 0.001), patient ease (p = 0.018), patient comfort (p = 0.004), and examiner comfort (p < 0.001). In phase 2, there was good intra-rater and inter-rater agreement in maximum CPT. Both tests were positively correlated (r = 0.50, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CPT is an objective measure of pelvic floor strength and provides consistent, reproducible results.

Anterior repair with or without collagen matrix reinforcement: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of anterior colporrhaphy alone to that reinforced with bovine pericardium graft. METHODS: Women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse were enrolled in a randomized fashion in this grafted compared with nongrafted repair study. Outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification data, quality-of-life assessment, healing abnormalities, and complications. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were enrolled. Seventy-two (77%) provided 1-year data, and 59 (63%) supplied 2-year data. Demographics and stage of prolapse were similar between groups at baseline. Postoperative complications consisted basically of low urinary tract infection and were low in both groups (10 in bovine pericardium graft and 16 in anterior colporrhaphy alone). One year after surgery, successful anterior vaginal wall support was obtained in 85.7% of the bovine pericardium graft group and 78.4% of anterior colporrhaphy-alone group (P=.544). For the cohort that comprised 2-year analyses, the success rate was 76.5% for the bovine pericardium graft group and 63% for anterior colporrhaphy-alone group (P=.509). Postoperative Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 and Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire-12 scores were uniformly improved over baseline in both groups. CONCLUSION: The use of bovine pericardium graft for anterior vaginal prolapse does not have higher complication rates or healing difficulties. At 1- and 2-year follow-up, anterior colporrhaphy with bovine pericardium reinforcement did not show a statistically significant improvement over colporrhaphy alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00860912 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

A prospective, randomized controlled trial of the use of an anal purse-string suture to decrease contamination during pelvic reconstructive surgery.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of an anal purse-string suture to prevent contamination of the operative field during vaginal surgery. Patients undergoing vaginal surgery involving the posterior compartment were enrolled to receive a purse-string suture closing the anus (group 1) or to not receive the suture (group 2). Perineal/perianal cultures were performed after sterile preparation and at conclusion of surgery. The primary outcome measure was gross fecal contamination. Secondary outcomes were results of perineal cultures. Continuous and ordinal variables were compared between groups using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, while comparisons of binary variables were performed using exact unconditional tests. Forty (40) patients were randomized. There were no significant differences in the two groups including age (P = 0.95), parity (P = 0.40), operative time (P = 0.75), and estimated blood loss (P = 0.81). Gross contamination rates were 0/40 (0%) for group 1 and 5/19 (26.3%) for group 2 (P = 0.015). Contamination by fecal flora occurred in 2/20 (10%) for group 1 and in 5/20 (25%) for group 2 (P = 0.27). No wound infections, graft erosions, or healing abnormalities were noted in either group. An anal purse-string suture is an effective way of reducing fecal contamination of the sterile field when performing vaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Vaginal vault prolapse: identification and surgical options.

Reconstructive surgeons should be familiar with the identification and treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Most utilized techniques can be effective in terms of suspension of the vaginal apex. New technology has allowed for the performance of vaginal-approach techniques with increasingly physiologic anatomic and functional outcomes (Figure 8).