A Motion-based Device Urinary Incontinence Treatment: A Longitudinal Analysis at 18 and 24 Months.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There are sparse data regarding the long-term efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) for the treatment of urinary incontinence (UI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an 8-week PFMT program guided by a motion-based intravaginal device versus a standard home program over 24 months. METHODS: Between October 2020 and March 2021, a total of 363 women with stress or stress-predominant mixed UI were randomized and completed an 8-week PFMT program using a motion-based intravaginal device (intervention group) or a home program following written/video instructions (control group). Participants were not asked to continue training after the 8-week program. At 18 and 24 months' follow-up, the Urogenital Distress Inventory, short-form (UDI-6) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) were collected. In the original trial, a total of 139 participants in each arm were needed to detect a 0.3 effect size (alpha = 0.05, power 0.8, one-tailed t test) in the difference in UDI-6 scores. RESULTS: A total of 231 participants returned 24-month data. Mean age at 24 months was 51.7 ± 14.5 years, and mean BMI was 31.8 ± 7.4 kg/m2. Mean change in UDI-6 scores from baseline to 24 months was greater in the intervention group than the control group (-21.1 ± 24.5 vs -14.8 ± 19.4, p = 0.04). Reported improvement using PGI-I was greater in the intervention group than in the control group at 24 months (35% vs 22%, p = 0.03, OR 1.95(95% CI 1.08, 3.57). CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor muscle training guided by a motion-based prescription intravaginal device yielded durable and significantly greater UI symptom improvement than a standard home program, even in the absence of continued therapy.

Randomized Trial on Expectations and Pain Control Advancement in Surgery: The REPAIR Study.

IMPORTANCE: Following standardized preoperative education and adoption of shared decision making positively affects postoperative narcotic practices. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of patient-centered preoperative education and shared decision making on the quantities of postoperative narcotics prescribed and consumed after urogynecologic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Women undergoing urogynecologic surgery were randomized to "standard" (standard preoperative education, standard narcotic quantities at discharge) or "patient-centered" (patient-informed preoperative education, choice of narcotic quantities at discharge) groups. At discharge, the "standard" group received 30 (major surgery) or 12 (minor surgery) pills of 5-mg oxycodone. The "patient-centered" group chose 0 to 30 (major surgery) or 0 to 12 (minor surgery) pills. Outcomes included postoperative narcotics consumed and unused. Other outcomes included patient satisfaction/preparedness, return to activity, and pain interference. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 174 women; 154 were randomized and completed the major outcomes of interest (78 in the standard group, 76 in the patient-centered group). Narcotic consumption did not differ between groups (standard group: median of 3.5 pills, interquartile range [IQR] of [0, 8.25]; patient centered: median of 2, IQR of [0, 9.75]; P = 0.627). The patient-centered group had fewer narcotics prescribed ( P < 0.001) and unused ( P < 0.001), and chose a median of 20 pills (IQR [10, 30]) after a major surgical procedure and 12 pills (IQR [6, 12]) after a minor surgical procedure, with fewer unused narcotics (median difference, 9 pills; 95% confidence interval, 5-13; P < 0.001). There were no differences between groups' return to function, pain interference, and preparedness or satisfaction ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered education did not decrease narcotic consumption. Shared decision making did decrease prescribed and unused narcotics. Shared decision making in narcotic prescribing is feasible and may improve postoperative prescribing practices.

Managing Urinary Incontinence for Women in Primary Care: Environmental Scan (Base Year).

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a highly prevalent condition among women worldwide. Although effective nonsurgical treatments exist, including pharmacological, behavioral, and physical therapies, many women with the condition are never diagnosed because of a lack of information, stigma, and the absence of regular screening in primary care, and those who are diagnosed might not receive or adhere to treatment. In this study, the authors present an environmental scan of studies published from 2012 through 2022 that assess the dissemination and implementation of nonsurgical UI treatment-including screening, management, and referral strategies-for women in primary care. The scan was conducted as part of the RAND's support and evaluation contract for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Managing Urinary Incontinence initiative. The initiative, which builds on the agency's EvidenceNOW model, funds five grant projects to disseminate and implement improved nonsurgical treatment of UI for women within primary care practices in separate regions of the United States.

Endometrial Cancer Surgery With or Without Concomitant Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of life (QOL) among patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or early-stage endometrial cancer and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) who chose to have concomitant surgery with cancer surgery alone. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted across eight U.S. sites. Potentially eligible patients were screened for SUI symptoms. Those who screened positive were offered referral to urogynecology and incontinence treatment, including concomitant surgery. Participants were categorized into two groups: 1) concomitant cancer and SUI surgery or 2) cancer surgery alone. The primary outcome was cancer-related QOL as measured by the FACT-En (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial) (range 0-100; higher score indicates better QOL). The FACT-En and questionnaires assessing urinary symptom-specific severity and effects were assessed before surgery and 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. Adjusted median regression accounting for clustering was used to examine the relationship between SUI treatment group and FACT-En scores. RESULTS: Of 1,322 (53.1%) patients, 702 screened positive for SUI with 532 analyzed; 110 (21%) chose concomitant cancer and SUI surgery, and 422 (79%) chose cancer surgery alone. FACT-En scores increased for both the concomitant SUI surgery and cancer surgery-only groups from the preoperative to the postoperative period. After adjustment for timepoint and preoperative covariates, the median change in FACT-En score (postoperative-preoperative) was 1.2 points higher (95% CI -1.3 to 3.6) for the concomitant SUI surgery group compared with the cancer surgery-only group across the postoperative period. Median time until surgery (22 days vs 16 days; P <.001), estimated blood loss (150 mL vs 72.5 mL; P <.001), and operative time (185.5 minutes vs 152 minutes; P <.001) were all greater for the concomitant cancer and SUI surgery group compared with the cancer-only group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Concomitant surgery did not result in improved QOL compared with cancer surgery alone for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and patients with early-stage endometrial cancer with SUI. However, FACT-En scores were improved in both groups.

Digital Therapeutic Device for Urinary Incontinence: A Longitudinal Analysis at 6 and 12 Months.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of an 8-week regimen of pelvic floor muscle training guided by a motion-based digital therapeutic device compared with a standard home program in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). METHODS: The primary virtual trial was conducted from October 2020 to March 2021; 363 women with SUI or stress-predominant MUI were randomized to complete pelvic floor muscle training using the device (intervention group) or a standard home pelvic floor muscle training program (control group) for 8 weeks. Primary outcomes included change in UDI-6 (Urogenital Distress Inventory, Short Form) score and SUI episodes on a 3-day bladder diary. The PGI-I (Patient Global Impression of Improvement) was also assessed, with "much better" and "very much better" responses considered as improvement. In this planned secondary analysis, symptom and adherence data were collected in follow-up at 6 and 12 months. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed using Student's t tests and χ2 tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Of 299 participants analyzed at 8 weeks, 286 (95.7%) returned 6- and 12-month data (151 in the control group, 135 in the intervention group). Mean age was 51.9±12.8 years, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.8±7.4; 84.6% of participants were parous, and 54.9% were postmenopausal. Mean change in UDI-6 score from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the control group (20.2±20.9 vs 14.8±19.5, P=.03 and 22.7±23.3 vs 15.9±20.3, P=.01, respectively). Participants in the intervention group had more than twice the odds of reporting improvement on the PGI-I compared with participants in the control group (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.49-4.00). CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor muscle training guided by a motion-based digital therapeutic device yielded significantly greater urinary incontinence symptom improvement compared with a standard home pelvic floor muscle training program at 6 and 12 months, although continued improvement waned over time. This technology may facilitate pelvic floor muscle training access and adherence for women with SUI and stress-predominant MUI and represents an effective modality for scaling first-line care. FUNDING SOURCE: Renovia Inc. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04508153.

Beliefs and Narratives Associated with the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Female patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) face complicated healthcare journeys, but narrative perspectives on CPP treatment are lacking. DESIGN: We collected data in English and Spanish from discussion groups and individual interviews with stakeholders around female CPP. SETTING: A tertiary care center for gynecologic care. PATIENTS: Patients with CPP who self-identified as women/female, community healthcare workers, and providers who care for women with CPP. INTERVENTIONS: We conducted discussion groups with all 3 types of stakeholders and individual interviews with female patients who have CPP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient participants completed condition specific validated questionnaires. De-identified transcripts were coded with NVivo software. We contrasted patient characteristics and codes between patients with CPP who did and did not report opioid use in the last 90 days. The mean pain score of patient participants was 6/10 ± 2/10, and 14 of 47 (28%) reported recent opioid use, without significant differences between patients with and without recent opioid use. Thematic saturation was achieved. Five main themes emerged: the debilitating nature of CPP, emotional impacts of CPP, challenges in CPP healthcare interactions, treatment for CPP, and the value of not feeling alone. Common threads voiced by stakeholders included difficulty discussing chronic pain with others, a sense of inertia in treatment, interest in alternative and less invasive treatments before more involved treatments, and the need for individualized, stepwise, integrated treatment plans. Participants agreed that opioids should be used when other treatments fail, but women recently using opioids voiced fewer concerns about addiction and positive experiences with opioid efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings among female patients with CPP and also among community healthcare workers and providers advocate for a move toward patient-centered care, particularly the acknowledgment that every woman experiences pain in a singular way. Furthermore, stakeholders voice a deep need for development of individualized treatment plans.

Patient-Centered Goals for Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders.

Purpose of review: To review the current literature on patient centered goals for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). Recent findings: Patients have a poor understanding of their PFDs, regardless if they had prior PFD treatments or received counseling, emphasizing the need for improved education from healthcare providers. Understanding the patient perspective provides insights into identifying patient goals, which facilitates communication and allows for tailored counseling, management of expectations, and assessment of treatment response. Functional outcomes are consistently important to patients, often listed as their main treatment goals. The achievement of these goals is fundamental to satisfaction. IMPACT and PROMIS are examples of PCO measures that can be utilized in both research and clinical settings. Finally, telemedicine has emerged as a viable alternative to clinic visits that offers improved access to care with no increase in adverse events or dissatisfaction, in order to aid in monitoring and meeting patient treatment goals. Summary: Patient involvement is fundamental to providing value-based care. Provider understanding of the patient perspective is necessary to guide counseling and treatment. Patient-centered goals offer a way to engage patients, facilitate communication, and improve patient satisfaction. Although there are multiple validated PCO tools, further development and research involving patient input is needed.

Digital Therapeutic Device for Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether pelvic floor muscle training using a motion-based digital intravaginal device is more effective than home pelvic floor muscle training for treatment of stress or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: In a remote, virtually executed 8-week prospective randomized controlled superiority trial, women with stress or stress-predominant mixed UI were randomized to pelvic floor muscle training using a motion-based digital therapeutic device or a home training program using written and narrated instructions. Primary outcomes were change in UDI-6 (Urogenital Distress Inventory, Short Form) score and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) episodes on a 3-day bladder diary. A sample size of 139 per group (n=278) was planned to meet the power analysis requirements for the UDI-6 score (n=278) and the bladder diary (n=78). Prespecified secondary outcomes included quality-of-life surveys and adherence reporting. RESULTS: From September 2020 to March 2021, 5,353 participants were screened, and 363 were randomized: 182 in the intervention and 181 in the control group. There were no baseline clinicodemographic differences between groups. The mean change in UDI-6 score was significantly greater for the intervention group compared with the control group (18.8 vs 14.7, P=.01). The median (interquartile range) number of SUI episodes on the 3-day bladder diary was significantly reduced from 5 (3-8) and 5 (3-8) episodes to 1 (0-3) and 2 (1-4) (P=.005) in the intervention group compared with control group, respectively. A significantly greater number of participants in the intervention group than in the control group reported they were "much improved" or "very much improved" on the PGI-I (Patient Global Impression of Improvement) (63/143 [44.1% vs 45/156 [28.8%], odds ratio 1.94, 95% CI 1.21-3.15). There were no device-related severe adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this all-remote, virtually conducted trial, pelvic floor muscle training guided by a motion-based digital therapeutic device resulted in significantly improved UI symptoms and reduction of UI episodes compared with a home training program. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04508153. FUNDING SOURCE: Renovia Inc.

Midurethral Sling Removal or Revision in Women with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are (1) to estimate the incidence of midurethral sling revision/removal in women with preexisting pain diagnoses versus those without these diagnoses and (2) to describe associations between numbers and type of pain diagnoses with revision/removal. METHODS: Women who underwent midurethral sling surgery between 2009 through 2014 were identified in the MarketScan database and tracked and December 31, 2014. Patients with preoperative chronic pain diagnoses (fibromyalgia, endometriosis, irritable bowel, dyspareunia, low back pain, temporomandibular joint syndrome, interstitial cystitis, pelvic/perineal pain) were compared with controls (those without these diagnoses) regarding mesh sling revision/removal. Logistic regression identified variables associated with mesh revision/removal, and survival analysis compared timing of mesh removal/revision. RESULTS: There were 161,459 women who underwent midurethral sling surgery (pain, 83,484; nonpain, 77,975). Pain and nonpain groups differed in age (52.1 vs 53.5 years, P < 0.01) and insurance status (P < 0.01), with the pain group more commonly living in the South or West. Mean follow-up was 42.3 months. Cumulative risk for sling revision/removal was higher in patients with 1 pain diagnosis relative to controls (relative risk, 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.54). Risks increased with increased pain diagnoses (≥4 diagnoses; relative risk, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.81-3.47). Pelvic pain conditions had greatest odds of mesh revision/removal (dyspareunia adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.44; 95% CI, 2.23-2.63; interstitial cystitis aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.66; pelvic/perineal pain aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.33-1.48). Co-occurrence of dyspareunia and interstitial cystitis or pelvic/perineal pain had 12.7% cumulative incidence of sling revision/removal. Cox proportional hazards revealed greatest risk for those with pelvic pain conditions (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.13-2.70). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain diagnoses increased risk of midurethral sling revision/removal; pelvic pain and numbers of diagnoses increased this risk.

Chlorhexidine gluconate vs povidone-iodine vaginal antisepsis for urogynecologic surgery: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although povidone-iodine (iodine) is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved vaginal antiseptic solution, there is a lack of comparative data evaluating alternatives. Chlorhexidine gluconate is readily accessible, recommended by multiple societies as an alternative for patients with iodine allergy, and preliminary data indicate that it may provide superior antisepsis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine and iodine as presurgical vaginal antiseptic solutions in preventing the most common surgery-associated infection after gynecologic surgery, urinary tract infections. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled noninferiority trial among women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. The primary outcome measure was symptomatic urinary tract infection within 2 weeks after surgery. The secondary outcomes included culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery, symptomatic urinary tract infections at 6 weeks after surgery, any surgical site infection at 2 weeks after surgery, and patient-reported vaginal irritation after surgery. We required 58 participants per arm to demonstrate noninferiority of chlorhexidine vs iodine (margin of relative risk of <1.5 for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval) between groups for the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 119 participants (61 in the chlorhexidine group and 58 in the iodine group) completed the primary outcome and were included in the analyses. There was no difference in the groups' demographic characteristics, medical history, operations performed, or perioperative factors. Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine concerning the primary outcome, symptomatic urinary tract infection at 2 weeks after surgery (10% vs 17%; relative risk, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [-∞, 1.3]). Furthermore, chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for the secondary urinary tract infection outcomes (culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery and symptomatic urinary tract infection at 6 weeks after surgery). Groups were similar in terms of surgical site infection (overall 3/119 [2.5%]) and presence of any vaginal irritation (4/54 [7.4%], for both groups). CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for vaginal antisepsis before urogynecologic surgery concerning urinary tract infection. Given the similar postoperative urinary tract infection rates demonstrated in this study and the lack of difference in vaginal irritation, chlorhexidine seemed to be a safe and reasonable option for vaginal antisepsis before surgical procedures. Additional studies are needed to further examine surgical site infection.

Development of a Simplified Patient-Centered Pelvic Floor Surgery Complication Scale.

OBJECTIVES: There does not currently exist a complication scale to evaluate pelvic reconstructive surgery (PRS) that takes in account patient-centered outcomes. The purpose of this study was to characterize and compare patient and surgeon responses to a simplified, patient-centered version of the previously described Pelvic Floor Complication Scale (PFCS). METHODS: This is a multicenter (4 female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practices) cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons. Using focus groups and telephone surveys, the original PFCS questionnaire was simplified. One hundred and twenty-four patients were recruited 6-12 months after PRS. Fifty-seven surgeons were recruited via electronic questionnaires. Surgeons and patients were asked to rank the severity and bother of each complication on a scale of 0 to 5 (0, none; 1, mild; 3, moderate; 5, major). RESULTS: Patients rated bother higher than severity for 36 of 38 complications (all differences ≤0.5 points). For statistical analysis, the highest response to patient bother/severity was chosen to weigh in favor of the patient. Patient bother/severity scores were significantly different (±0.5 points) for 27 of 38 complications compared with surgeon responses. Surgeon scores were higher for 5 complications (0.5-1.9 point differences) related to major injury requiring repair and wound breakdown. Patient scores were higher for 22 complications with the highest differences related to dyspareunia, constipation, or new/persistent urinary incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed methods investigation revealed key differences between how patients and surgeons value PRS complications. Surgeons scored major surgical injuries higher than patients, whereas patients rated issues that many surgeons consider quality-of-life outcomes higher due to potential long-term bother. These data will be used to create a simplified, patient-centered PFCS.

Preferences for Preoperative Education: A Qualitative Study of the Patient Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to identify and describe the information that is important to patients in preparation for surgery for pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: This qualitative study enrolled English- and Spanish-speaking patients who had undergone surgery for pelvic floor disorders in semistructured focus groups. We explored patients' attitudes and views regarding preoperative education, postoperative experiences, and quality of pain management. Focus groups were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Deidentified focus group transcripts were analyzed with line-by-line coding and organized into themes using a team-based process. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted, 2 with English-speaking women (n = 14) and 2 with Spanish-speaking women (n = 10). Participants identified as non-Hispanic White 13/24 (54%) or Hispanic 11/24 (46%); 83% had at least a high school education and 50% had a bachelor's degree. Women reported 5 thematic domains of information that they deemed important for patients to know preoperatively: (1) preparation for surgery; (2) postoperative pain control expectations; (3) postoperative activity restrictions; (4) communication with care team; and (5) care experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies information that is important to patients undergoing pelvic floor surgery. These patient-centered themes go beyond routine preoperative education and counseling. This information will aid future studies regarding the incorporation of patient-centered preoperative education and expectation setting with respect to improved pain control, patient satisfaction, and overall surgical experience.

Women's Experience of Their First Sexual Encounter After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the timing, quality and patient concerns regarding the first sexual encounter after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: Women scheduled to undergo POP or UI surgery who self-identified as sexually active were recruited to this qualitative study. Routine counseling regarding the return to sexual activity was provided 4-6 weeks postoperatively. Participants completed interviews 2-4 months after their surgery. Interviews were tape recorded, de-identified, and transcribed. Transcriptions were coded for major themes by two independent researchers; disagreements were arbitrated by the research team. Analysis was performed using Dedoose software. RESULTS: Twenty patients with an average age of 52.4 years participated. Most identified themselves as White (85%), one quarter had a history of hysterectomy, and 15% had previously undergone pelvic reconstructive surgery. Nineteen (95%) patients resumed intercourse 2-4 months after surgery. Thematic saturation was reached with major themes of Outside Influences, Conflicting Emotions, Uncertainty, Sexual Changes and Stability, Normalization, and Self-Image. First sexual encounter timing was strongly influenced by partners' desires and fears and physician counseling. Fear of damage to repairs affected patients' comfort with return to sexual activity. Although uncertain of how anatomical changes or presence of mesh would affect function, women hoped that changes would be positive, regardless of preoperative sexual function. Some women found their experience unchanged, whereas others reported need for change in sexual position, use of lubrication, and sensation of foreign body. Positive changes included increase in desire, pleasure, and improvement in orgasm. Self-image generally improved after surgery, which increased women's sexual confidence. CONCLUSION: The return to sexual activity after surgery for POP or UI represents a great unknown for many women. Reports of initial sexual activity after surgery are often positive, and physicians strongly influence initial postoperative sexual encounter timing. Frank counseling about patient and partners' fears regarding the effect of repair on sexual activity would likely improve patients' outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with midurethral sling surgery vs surgery alone among women with mixed urinary incontinence: results of the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced With Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent among women, and it has a substantial economic impact. Mixed urinary incontinence, with both stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms, has a greater adverse impact on quality of life and is more complex to treat than either stress or urgency urinary incontinence alone. Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treating both the stress and urgency urinary incontinence components simultaneously are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness was assessed between perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery and midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. The impact of baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms on cost-effectiveness was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with the Effects of Surgical Treatment Enhanced with Exercise for Mixed Urinary Incontinence randomized trial that was conducted from October 2013 to April 2016. Participants included 480 women with moderate-to-severe stress and urgency urinary incontinence symptoms and at least 1 stress urinary incontinence episode and 1 urgency urinary incontinence episode on a 3-day bladder diary. The primary within-trial analysis was from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with a 1-year time horizon. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years and reductions in urinary incontinence episodes per day. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combined treatment vs midurethral sling surgery alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Analysis was performed for the overall study population and subgroup of women with Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile. RESULTS: The costs for combined treatment were higher than the cost for midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector perspective ($5100 [95% confidence interval, $5000-$5190] vs $4470 [95% confidence interval, $4330-$4620]; P<.01) and the societal perspective ($9260 [95% confidence interval, $8590-$9940] vs $8090 [95% confidence interval, $7630-$8560]; P<.01). There was no difference between combined treatment and midurethral sling surgery alone in quality-adjusted life-years (0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89] vs 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89]; P=.90) or mean reduction in urinary incontinence episodes per day (-4.76 [95% confidence interval, -4.51 to 5.00] vs -4.50 [95% confidence interval, -4.25 to 4.75]; P=.13). When evaluating the overall study population, from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, midurethral sling surgery alone was superior to combined treatment. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone is ≤28% from the healthcare sector and ≤19% from the societal perspectives for a willingness-to-pay value of ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. For women with baseline Urogenital Distress Inventory irritative scores of ≥50th percentile, combined treatment was cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives. The probability that combined treatment is cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for this subgroup is ≥90% from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, at a willingness-to-pay value of ≥$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Overall, perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapies combined with midurethral sling surgery was not cost-effective compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. However, combined treatment was of good value compared with midurethral sling surgery alone for women with baseline severe urgency urinary incontinence symptoms.

Characteristics Associated With Treatment Failure 1 Year After Midurethral Sling in Women With Mixed Urinary Incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics associated with treatment failure 1 year after midurethral sling in women with mixed urinary incontinence. METHODS: Four-hundred three women who participated in a randomized trial that compared midurethral sling and behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy (combined group) compared with midurethral sling alone for mixed incontinence with 1-year follow-up data were eligible for this planned secondary analysis. Overall treatment failure was defined as meeting criteria for subjective or objective failure or both. Subjective failure was defined as not meeting the minimal clinical important difference for improvement on the UDI (Urogenital Distress Inventory) total score (26.1 points). Objective failure was defined as not achieving 70% improvement on mean incontinence episodes of any type per day or having undergone any additional treatment for persistent urinary symptoms at 12 months postoperative. Logistic regression models for treatment failure were constructed. Independent variables included site and treatment group, and clinical and demographic variables based on bivariate comparisons (P<.2). Treatment group interaction effects were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred twelve of 379 (29.6%) women had overall treatment failure, with 56 of 379 (14.7%) undergoing additional treatment but only two needing intervention for stress incontinence. Previous overactive bladder (OAB) medication (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.19, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96, 95% CI 1.17-3.31); detrusor overactivity on cystometrogram (OR 2.25, aOR 2.82, 95% CI 1.60-4.97); and higher volume at first urge (OR 1.03, aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07) were associated with overall failure. Worse UDI-urgency scores were associated with failure, with an added interaction effect in the midurethral sling-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Certain clinical and urodynamic variables are associated with treatment failure after midurethral sling in women with mixed urinary incontinence. Women with more severe urgency symptoms at baseline may benefit from perioperative behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with midurethral sling. Overall, the need for additional urinary treatment was low and primarily for OAB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01959347.

Subgroups of failure after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and associations with quality of life outcomes: a longitudinal cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment outcomes after pelvic organ prolapse surgery are often presented as dichotomous "success or failure" based on anatomic and symptom criteria. However, clinical experience suggests that some women with outcome "failures" are asymptomatic and perceive their surgery to be successful and that other women have anatomic resolution but continue to report symptoms. Characterizing failure types could be a useful step to clarify definitions of success, understand mechanisms of failure, and identify individuals who may benefit from specific therapies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify clusters of women with similar failure patterns over time and assess associations among clusters and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory, Short-Form Six-Dimension health index, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, patient satisfaction item questionnaire, and quality-adjusted life-year. STUDY DESIGN: Outcomes were evaluated for up to 5 years in a cohort of participants (N=709) with stage ≥2 pelvic organ prolapse who underwent surgical pelvic organ prolapse repair and had sufficient follow-up in 1 of 4 multicenter surgical trials conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Surgical success was defined as a composite measure requiring anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system points Ba, Bp, and C of ≤0), subjective success (absence of bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms), and absence of retreatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Participants who experienced surgical failure and attended ≥4 visits from baseline to 60 months after surgery were longitudinally clustered, accounting for similar trajectories in Ba, Bp, and C and degree of vaginal bulge bother; moreover, missing data were imputed. Participants with surgical success were grouped into a separate cluster. RESULTS: Surgical failure was reported in 276 of 709 women (39%) included in the analysis. Failures clustered into the following 4 mutually exclusive subgroups: (1) asymptomatic intermittent anterior wall failures, (2) symptomatic intermittent anterior wall failures, (3) asymptomatic intermittent anterior and posterior wall failures, and (4) symptomatic all-compartment failures. Each cluster had different bulge symptoms, anatomy, and retreatment associations with quality of life outcomes. Asymptomatic intermittent anterior wall failures (n=150) were similar to surgical successes with Ba values that averaged around -1 cm but fluctuated between anatomic success (Ba≤0) and failure (Ba>0) over time. Symptomatic intermittent anterior wall failures (n=82) were anatomically similar to asymptomatic intermittent anterior failures, but women in this cluster persistently reported bothersome bulge symptoms and the lowest quality of life, Short-Form Six-Dimension health index scores, and perceived success. Women with asymptomatic intermittent anterior and posterior wall failures (n=28) had the most severe preoperative pelvic organ prolapse but the lowest symptomatic failure rate and retreatment rate. Participants with symptomatic all-compartment failures (n=16) had symptomatic and anatomic failure early after surgery and the highest retreatment of any cluster. CONCLUSION: In particular, the following 4 clusters of pelvic organ prolapse surgical failure were identified in participants up to 5 years after pelvic organ prolapse surgery: asymptomatic intermittent anterior wall failures, symptomatic intermittent anterior wall failures, asymptomatic intermittent anterior and posterior wall failures, and symptomatic all-compartment failures. These groups provide granularity about the nature of surgical failures after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Future work is planned for predicting these distinct outcomes using patient characteristics that can be used for counseling women individually.

Perineorrhaphy Outcomes Related to Body Imagery: A Randomized Trial of Body Image Perception.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if a perineorrhaphy at the time of apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery positively affects women's body image. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial of women undergoing apical suspension procedures in which women (GH ≥2 cm to ≤6 cm) received either perineorrhaphy or no perineorrhaphy. The primary aim compared body image between the groups postoperatively using the Body Image in Pelvic Organ Prolapse (BIPOP) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included prolapse stage, pain, pelvic floor muscle strength, pelvic floor symptoms, and sexual function. Between- and within-group differences were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. When continuous variables were not normally distributed, the Welch-Satterthwaite test was used. Within-group analyses were performed via paired t tests for select continuous variables. RESULTS: Forty-six women were enrolled; 45 (97.8%) completed the 6-week assessment and 38 (82.6%) completed the 3-month assessment. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. Although women within groups had an expected improvement in mean Body Image in Pelvic Organ Prolapse and subscale scores between baseline and 3 months (P < 0.05), there were no differences in the mean scores between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of apical prolapse surgery improved women's body image, irrespective of performance of a perineorrhaphy. Other important outcomes, including pain, did not differ between women in the 2 groups. These findings demonstrate the need for further trials to investigate the utility of this procedure.

Design of a Study to Measure Patient-Perspectives in Adverse Event Reporting (the PPAR Study): Supplementary Study to the ASPIRe Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to compare patient versus physician rankings of adverse event (AE) and adverse symptom (AS) severity after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Secondary objectives include to estimate the association between patient rankings of AEs/ASs with decision-making and quality-of-life outcomes and to determine whether patient perspective about AE/AS changes over time. METHODS: This is a supplementary study, Patient-Perspectives in Adverse Event Reporting (PPAR), to the index trial, ASPIRe (Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse In a Three-Arm Randomized Trial Design). During the trial, AEs/ASs will be assessed by physicians longitudinally every 6 months, which includes a determination of the AE/AS grade severity. For PPAR, additional patient perspective will be measured for 19 predetermined AEs/ASs at the time of identification and again at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Decision-making and quality-of-life questionnaires will be collected at these time points. The primary outcome, the overall interrater agreement between patient and physician rankings for AE/AS severity, will be determined using a repeated-measures concordance correlation coefficient. RESULTS: To date, the index trial has completed enrollment, and follow-up is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The PPAR methods for incorporating patient perspective in the measurement of AEs/ASs to determine their agreement with physician ranking, long-term relevance, and impact on treatment decision making and quality of life are described. This will contribute to improved measurements of AEs/ASs in future research with the goal of improving patient counseling and informing expectations and treatment decision making.

Success and failure are dynamic, recurrent event states after surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND: The ideal measure of success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has long been debated. Historically, strict definitions based on anatomic perfection have dominated the literature. However, the importance of patient-centered perception of outcomes is equally or more important when comparing the success of various prolapse surgeries. Understanding the limitations of existing outcome definitions will guide surgical outcome reporting and comparisons of pelvic organ prolapse surgeries. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the relationships and overlap among the participants who met the anatomic, subjective, and retreatment definitions of success or failure after pelvic organ prolapse surgery; demonstrate rates of transition between success and failure over time; and compare scores from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory, Short-Form Six-Dimension health index, and quality-adjusted life years among these definitions. STUDY DESIGN: Definitions of surgical success were evaluated at 3 or 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after surgery for ≥stage II pelvic organ prolapse in a cohort of women (N=1250) from 4 randomized clinical trials conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Surgical failure was defined by a composite measure requiring 1 or more of (1) anatomic failure (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point Ba, Bp, or C of >0), (2) subjective failure (presence of bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms), or (3) pessary or surgical retreatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory, Short-Form Six-Dimension health index, and quality-adjusted life years were compared among participants who met a variety of definitions of success and failure including novel "intermittent" success and failure over time. RESULTS: Among the 433 of 1250 women (34.6%) who had surgical failure outcomes at ≥1 time point, 85.5% (370 of 433) met only 1 component of the composite outcome at the assessment of initial failure (anatomic failure, 46.7% [202 of 433]; subjective failure, 36.7% [159 of 433]; retreatment, 2.1% [9 of 433]). Only 12.9% (56 of 433) met the criteria for both for anatomic and subjective failure. Despite meeting the criteria for failure in primary study reporting, 24.2% of these (105 of 433) transitioned between success and failure during follow-up, of whom 83.8% (88 of 105) met the criteria for success at their last follow-up. There were associations between success or failure classification and the 1- and 2-year quality-adjusted life years and a time-varying group effect on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory and Short-Form Six-Dimension health index scores. CONCLUSION: True failure rates after prolapse surgery may be overestimated in the current literature. Only 13% of clinical trial subjects initially met both subjective and objective criteria for failure. Approximately one-quarter of failures were intermittent and transitioned between success and failure over time, with most intermittent failures being in a state of "surgical success" at their last follow-up. Current composite definitions of success or failure may result in the overestimation of surgical failure rates, potentially explaining, in part, the discordance with low retreatment rates after pelvic organ prolapse surgery.