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.

One-year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate and compare 1-year anatomic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing transvaginal versus transabdominal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with synthetic mesh reinforcement. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, matched cohort study of patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) and vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy (VEC) with synthetic mesh from December 2008 to March 2011. We compared the preoperative to postoperative changes in anatomic, quality of life, and functional outcomes between groups after 1 year of follow-up. One-year surgical satisfaction was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight RALSC patients met the inclusion criteria and were matched by age and month of surgery to 38 VEC patients. Of those, 31 RALSC and 30 VEC patients (80%) had complete 1-year data. Preoperative to postoperative outcomes were similar in both groups with similar improvement seen in anatomic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification measures as well as functional questionnaire scores. Both groups demonstrated high surgical satisfaction. Symptom distress inventory scales revealed 84% and 90% resolution of symptomatic "bulge" in RALSC and VEC patients, respectively (P = 0.74). The RALSC group had a significantly greater operative time by approximately 96 minutes and greater use of general anesthesia (P = <0.001). No difference was noted in blood loss, hospital days, or return to normal voiding between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Transabdominal and transvaginal techniques of colpopexy using synthetic mesh implants for POP have been shown in this retrospective cohort study to improve quality of life and anatomic measures with similar outcomes. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy results in a greater use of general anesthesia and longer operative time.

Intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA for overactive bladder.

INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder is a life-compromising disease that affects approximately 11.8% of all men and women, with increasing rates in the elderly. The mainstay of pharmacotherapy for this disease, anticholinergics, has up to a 71% discontinuation rate at 6 months. The emerging data of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) use for treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder is showing to be an efficacious and well-tolerated alternative to the mainstay of therapy. AREAS COVERED: This study covers the use of onabotA and its use for idiopathic overactive bladder, stemming from its use in neurogenic detrusor overactivity, by evaluating the conclusions of current studies. A literature search and review was carried out for onabotA in treatment of overactive bladder using PubMed. EXPERT OPINION: Multiple randomized clinical trials have shown that intradetrusor injection with onabotA is effective in treating non-neurogenic bladder with promising efficacy in patients who have failed traditional pharmacotherapy. This treatment may be superior in certain patients due to its higher rate of compliance and higher rates of complete symptom resolution. Long-term studies are needed.