Central Sensitisation Syndrome: A Frequent Finding in Women with Pelvic Floor Symptoms Without Evident Urogenital Prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women with central sensitisation syndrome (CSS) experience poorer subjective post-operative outcomes even after successful pelvic floor reconstruction. This study tests the hypothesis that women with pelvic floor symptoms (PFS) without relevant pelvic organ prolapse (POP), are more likely to have CSS. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to women who participated in the POP-UP study in 2017. The POP-UP study evaluated POP in 247 women 16 years after laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy. POP-Q data and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) results were used and supplemented with CSS-specific questionnaires. A Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI) score above 40 implicates CSS. Women were divided into groups based on POP beyond the hymen in relation to the PFDI-20 score. Outcomes of women with PFS and without POP (called 'group 1') were compared with the rest of the cohort (groups 2-4; women without PFS and/or with POP). RESULTS: A total of 136 women were included in the analysis. A CSI score above 40 was present in 16 out of 42 women of group 1 (37%) versus 11 out of 93 women of groups 2-4 (12%), p < 0.0001. Passive coping was more prevalent in group 1 (p = 0.039), and more deviations in somatisation, depression, anxiety and distress were found in group 1 (p values of < 0.0001, 0.018, 0.003 and 0.002 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CSS might be more prevalent in women with PFS without relevant POP. More awareness of CSS and valid individual counselling may overcome unnecessary surgery for POP and help in setting realistic expectations.

Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure. Objective: To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications. Results: Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure. Trial Registration: TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.

The effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) is a technique to correct apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) by shortening the uterosacral ligaments with sutures. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of LUSLS as treatment for apical POP. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Cochrane search using 'pelvic organ prolapse', 'laparoscopy' and 'uterosacral', including synonyms. SELECTION CRITERIA: All articles in English presenting outcome of an original series of women with LUSLS as treatment of apical POP. Case reports were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study enrollment was performed by two reviewers. Our primary outcome measures were objective and subjective effectiveness of the procedure. Secondary outcome measures regarded complications and recurrence. Bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. MAIN RESULTS: Of 138 hits, 13 studies were included with 933 LUSLS patients. The average follow-up was 22 months. All were nonrandomised cohort studies. The pooled anatomic success rate is 90% for all LUSLS procedures (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-95.5). LUSLS with hysterectomy resulted in an anatomic success rate of 96.6% (95% CI 87.5-100) and LUSLS with uterus preservation 83.4% (95% CI 67.7-94.6). The pooled subjective cure rate was 90.5% (95% CI 81.9-96.5). The rate of major complications was 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (with or without uterus preservation) seems to be an effective and safe treatment for women with apical POP, but long-term prospective trials and randomised controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Long-term pelvic floor symptoms and urogenital prolapse after hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the natural course of pelvic floor symptoms and pelvic floor anatomy for women long-term after hysterectomy. METHODS: Women who underwent hysterectomy between 1996-2004 carried out the PFDI-20 questionnaire and POP-Q examination. We collected data on the presence and type of pelvic floor symptoms and its relation to the degree of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) per compartment (≥ stage 2). RESULTS: We obtained data from 247 women on average sixteen years after hysterectomy, with no prolapse (n = 94), anterior prolapse (n = 76), posterior prolapse (n = 38), both anterior- and posterior prolapse (n = 20), and a prolapse involving the vaginal vault (n = 19). Of all 153 women with ≥ stage 2 prolapse, 80 (52%) experienced moderate and/or severe symptoms of the PFDI-20. Most frequently reported symptoms by women with POP were uncontrollable flatus, urinary frequency and urge incontinence. Bulging was associated with a prolapse beyond the hymen. 39% Of women without prolapse experienced bothersome pelvic floor symptoms as well. Most often these were stress incontinence, straining to pass stool and incomplete bowel emptying. Women with a history of hysterectomy for prolapse have more pelvic floor symptoms than women who underwent hysterectomy for other indications, regardless of the current presence of POP (57% versus 40%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: In a group of post-hysterectomy women who did not actively seek help, 47% experienced problematic pelvic floor symptoms, independent of the presence or absence of an anatomic POP. Creating more knowledge and awareness of the impact of hysterectomy on the pelvic floor can help women in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Dutch Trial Registry; Trial NL5967 (NTR6333, 2017-02-01) and approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Máxima Medical Center (NL60096.015.16, 2017-02-24).

The modified Manchester Fothergill procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: long-term outcome.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcome between vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension (VH) and the modified Manchester Fothergill procedure (MF) as surgical treatment in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We hypothesize that MF is non-inferior to VH in the long term. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective cohort study patients who underwent MF or VH for primary apical compartment prolapse between 2003 and 2009 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was subjective recurrence of POP. Secondary outcomes included number and type of reinterventions, time to reintervention and the degree of complaints. RESULTS: One hundred sixty of 398 patients (53 MF, 107 VH) returned the questionnaires (40%). The mean follow-up was 12.97 years for MF and 13.24 years for VH (p = 0.38). There were similar rates of subjective POP recurrence (51% in both groups). The reintervention rate in the MF group was higher but reached no statistical significance [19/53 (36%) versus 29/107 (27%), p = 0.26]. Kaplan-Meier curve showed no statistically significant difference in risk of reintervention after MF at the maximum follow-up of 16.5 years [HR 1.830 (95% CI 0.934-3.586), p = 0.08]. The mean time to reintervention was 3 years shorter in the MF group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The subjective recurrence after MF is similar to VH in treatment of POP at the long term. MF appears to be non-inferior to VH when comparing the risk of reintervention. However, the small sample size precludes a definitive conclusion of non-inferiority, and future studies are needed.

Patient's preference for sacrospinous hysteropexy or modified Manchester operation: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's preference for modified Manchester (MM) or sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) as surgery for uterine prolapse. DESIGN: Labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE). SETTING: Eight Dutch hospitals. POPULATION: Women with uterine prolapse, eligible for primary surgery and preference for uterus preservation. METHODS: DCEs are attribute-based surveys. The two treatment options were labelled as MM and SH. Attributes in this survey were treatment success ( levels SH: 84%, 89%, 94%; levels MM: 89%, 93%, 96%), dyspareunia (levels: 0%, 5%, 10%), cervical stenosis (levels: 1%, 6%, 11%) and severe buttock pain (levels: 0%, 1%). A different combination of attribute levels was used in each choice set. Women completed nine choice sets, making a choice based on attribute levels. Data were analysed in multinomial logit models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's preference for MM or SH. RESULTS: 137 DCEs were completed (1233 choice sets). SH was chosen in 49% of the choice sets, MM in 51%. Of all women, 39 (28%) always chose the same surgery. After exclusion of this group, 882 choice sets were analysed, in which women preferred MM, likely associated with a labelling effect, i.e. description of the procedure, rather than the tested attributes. In that group, MM was chosen in 53% of the choice sets and SH in 47%. When choosing MM, next to the label, dyspareunia was relevant for decision-making. For SH, all attributes were relevant for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The preference of women for MM or SH seems almost equally divided. The variety in preference supports the importance of individualised healthcare.

Pelvic organ prolapse after laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with vaginal hysterectomy: the POP-UP study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to review the long-term prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (VH). METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted amongst women who underwent an LH or a VH for benign indications during the period 1996-2004: the POP-UP study. The prevalence of POP was inventoried by a questionnaire involving the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and a pelvic floor examination (POP-Q). Women were divided into groups based on route and indication of hysterectomy: LH, VH-1 (for nonprolapse), and VH-2 (prolapse). RESULTS: Four hundred and six of the 706 eligible patients (58%) returned the questionnaire and 247 underwent POP-Q examination. Sixty-eight patients (17%) received treatment for prolapse; 8% LH, 10% VH-1, and 29% VH-2 (Chi-squared test, p < 0.001). The prevalence of vaginal vault prolapse (apical surgery or ≥ stage 2 at POP-Q) was 4.4% for LH and 5.8% for VH-1 (p = 0.707); and 23% for VH-2 (VH-2 versus others, p < 0.0001). The prevalence of prolapse ≥ stage 2 in any compartment was 62% (n = 153) in total and in 42% of the LH group, 51% of the VH-1 group, and 84% of the VH-2 group (Chi-squared test, p < 0.001). A symptomatic POP (anatomical POP ≥ stage 2 with bulging) was present in 11% of the population. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the prevalence of POP between LH and VH for nonprolapse indications. However, POP after VH for prolapse occurs more frequently than after hysterectomy for other indications.

Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed. METHODS: The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.

De-implementation of urodynamics in The Netherlands after the VALUE/VUSIS-2 results: a nationwide survey.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to estimate the level of de-implementation of preoperative routine urodynamics (UDS) before stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery in The Netherlands and to analyze facilitators and barriers. Routine UDS was performed by 37% of the medical specialists in 2010. We hypothesized that the recommendations from the recent Value of Urodynamics prior to Stress Incontinence Surgery (VUSIS) and Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) studies would have been followed by a reduction of routine UDS. METHODS: A national survey was performed among all Dutch gynecologists and urologists dealing with SUI in daily practice. The questionnaire contained two parts: (1) respondents' characteristics and their actual care concerning preoperative UDS, and (2) facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: The response rate was 41% (127/308). Of the respondents, 93% (n = 118) did not perform routine UDS in the preoperative workup for women in this group. Professional characteristics associated with not following the recommendations were profession urologist, academic hospital, and a lower number of midurethral sling (MUS) placed yearly. Facilitators to follow the recommendation not to perform routine UDS were adequate design of the VUSIS-II study and outcome and recommendations from the studies. Barriers not to follow the recommendation were believe in the additional value of UDS, especially the pressure transmission ratio, and the presence of detrusor overactivity. CONCLUSION: According to respondents to this questionnaire, VUSIS-II and ValUE study results are well implemented in The Netherlands. The vast majority of respondents replied as not performing routine preoperative UDS in women with primary, uncomplicated (predominant) SUI. Therefore, there is no need for a further de-implementation strategy.

The Impact of Midurethral Sling Surgery on Sexual Activity and Function in Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence.

INTRODUCTION: Stress urinary incontinence has a negative impact on sexual function. AIM: To assess the effect of midurethral sling surgery on sexual activity and function in women with stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Value of Urodynamics Prior to Stress Incontinence Surgery (VUSIS-II) study, which assessed the value of urodynamics in women with (predominantly) stress urinary incontinence. Patients who underwent retropubic or transobturator sling surgery were included in the present study if information was available on sexual activity before and 12 months after surgery. Data were collected from a self-report validated questionnaire combined with non-validated questions. The association between midurethral sling surgery and sexual function (coital incontinence, satisfaction, and dyspareunia) was compared with McNemar χ(2) tests for nominal data and paired t-tests for ordinal data. Potentially influential factors were analyzed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in sexual activity and sexual function after midurethral sling surgery. RESULTS: Information on sexual activity was available in 293 of the 578 women (51%) included in the VUSIS-II study. At baseline, 252 of 293 patients (86%) were sexually active vs 244 of 293 (83%) after 12 months. More patients with cured stress urinary incontinence were sexually active postoperatively (213 of 247 [86%] vs 31 of 46 [67%], P < .01). There was a significant decrease in coital incontinence (120 of 236 [51%] preoperatively vs 16 of 236 [7%] postoperatively, P < .01). De novo dyspareunia was present in 21 of 238 women (9%). There was a greater improvement in coital incontinence after placement of the retropubic sling compared with the transobturator sling (odds ratio = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.10-3.80, P = .02). CONCLUSION: These data show that midurethral sling surgery has an overall positive influence on sexual function in women with stress urinary incontinence. The retropubic sling is more effective than the transobturator sling for improvement of coital incontinence. De novo dyspareunia was present in 1 of 11 women.

Urodynamics before stress urinary incontinence surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In patients with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence, there is still a debate regarding the benefit of a multichannel urodynamic investigation prior to surgical management. The purpose of this article is to review recent evidence on this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: Results of two large randomized controlled trials provided evidence that preoperative urodynamics do not improve outcome of incontinence surgery in women with uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence. Furthermore, in this selected group of women, urodynamics hardly lead to deviation of surgery as a primary treatment in case of an indication for operation based on symptoms and signs. Low urethral closure pressures and detrusor overactivity are urodynamic parameters which were associated with impaired cure of symptoms of stress urinary incontinence after surgery. SUMMARY: Preoperative urodynamics do not improve outcome in women with complaints of stress incontinence and do hardly alter the treatment plan. It remains questionable whether a more accurate counselling on the postoperative perspectives counterbalances the disadvantages attended with urodynamics. The routine use in women with uncomplicated stress incontinence should no longer be advised. Preoperative urodynamic evaluation should only be used to answer a specific clinical question or if the results are likely to influence the choice of treatment.

Can we, and do we need to, define bladder neck hypermobility and intrinsic sphincteric deficiency? ICI-RS 2011.

AIMS: Bladder neck hypermobility (BNH, also called urethral hypermobility), and intrinsic sphincteric deficiency (ISD) are terms frequently used in the clinical evaluation and management of stress urinary incontinence, and as subject qualifiers in clinical research. The terms also infer pathophysiologic concepts, as BNH and ISD appear to represent two different aspects of failure of the continence mechanism. Unfortunately, neither term is well-defined, and the various clinical and urodynamic characterizations of these terms do not correlate well with one another. METHODS: The value of these concepts and these specific terms was debated at the ICI-RS meeting, Bristol, UK, June 2011. Two clinicians were asked to take opposing viewpoints, with three weeks lead-time prior to the meeting. Each discussant presented one viewpoint, "for" or "against," followed by a brief discussion to review the presentations. RESULTS: The consensus was that, while we currently cannot adequately define these terms, there is a need to develop terminology employing these concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Terminology should permit improved definition of the sphincteric mechanism, allow individual patient characterization and serve as useful waypoints in treatment decisions.

The value of preoperative urodynamics according to gynecologists and urologists with special interest in stress urinary incontinence.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study is to assess variations in practice in the use of preoperative urodynamics in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: We performed an E-survey among all Dutch gynecologists and urologists who have SUI as focus in daily practice. The questions concerned the common policy and preferred policy. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Of the 260 targeted specialists, 163 (63%) responded. We found that 37% of the respondents performed standard preoperative urodynamics; in the preferred practice, this would reduce to only 18%. Eighty percent indicated they would operate a patient with a positive stress test without urodynamic SUI, whereas 21% would do this also in case the clinical stress test was negative. Only 9% of the respondents indicated they adapted the choice of the type of sling based on urethral pressure profilometry parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Urodynamics are not routinely performed, and outcomes hardly influence the choice of treatment.

The correlation between clinical and urodynamic diagnosis in classifying the type of urinary incontinence in women. A systematic review of the literature.

AIMS: To determine the reclassification rate of clinically diagnosed stress, mixed, and urge urinary incontinence after urodynamic investigation. METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature in MEDLINE and EMBASE of clinical trials among women with urinary incontinence. Studies were included in case the diagnosis based on symptoms and/or signs was compared with the diagnosis after urodynamic investigation. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles involving 6,282 women with urinary incontinence met the inclusion criteria. A clinical diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence was reclassified into mixed urinary incontinence in 9% of women and into detrusor overactivity (DO) in 7% of cases. The pooled reclassification rate was highest among patients with symptoms of mixed urinary incontinence, where 46% of the patients had stress urinary incontinence and 21% had DO on urodynamic investigation. The available literature does not allow the identification of the additional value of non-invasive test, such as stress test and voiding diary, accessory to symptoms. None of the studies had therapeutic effects as an outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: This review of clinical studies shows that the level of agreement between classification based on clinical evaluation and based on urodynamic investigation is poor. Urodynamic observations are regarded as gold standard, but based on the poor correlation, this assumption should be questioned.

Protocol for the value of urodynamics prior to stress incontinence surgery (VUSIS) study: a multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess the cost effectiveness of urodynamics in women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence in whom surgical treatment is considered.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common problem. In the Netherlands, yearly 64.000 new patients, of whom 96% are women, consult their general practitioner because of urinary incontinence. Approximately 7500 urodynamic evaluations and approximately 5000 operations for SUI are performed every year. In all major national and international guidelines from both gynaecological and urological scientific societies, it is advised to perform urodynamics prior to invasive treatment for SUI, but neither its effectiveness nor its cost-effectiveness has been assessed in a randomized setting. The Value of Urodynamics prior to Stress Incontinence Surgery (VUSIS) study evaluates the positive and negative effects with regard to outcome, as well as the costs of urodynamics, in women with symptoms of SUI in whom surgical treatment is considered. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre diagnostic cohort study will be performed with an embedded randomized controlled trial among women presenting with symptoms of (predominant) SUI. Urinary incontinence has to be demonstrated on clinical examination and/or voiding diary. Physiotherapy must have failed and surgical treatment needs to be under consideration. Patients will be excluded in case of previous incontinence surgery, in case of pelvic organ prolapse more than 1 centimeter beyond the hymen and/or in case of residual bladder volume of more than 150 milliliter on ultrasound or catheterisation. Patients with discordant findings between the diagnosis based on urodynamic investigation and the diagnosis based on their history, clinical examination and/or micturition diary will be randomized to operative therapy or individually tailored therapy based on all available information. Patients will be followed for two years after treatment by their attending urologist or gynaecologist, in combination with the completion of questionnaires. Six hundred female patients will be recruited for registration from approximately twenty-seven hospitals in the Netherlands. We aspect that one hundred and two women with discordant findings will be randomized. The primary outcome of this study is clinical improvement of incontinence as measured with the validated Dutch version of the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI). Secondary outcomes of this study include costs, cure of incontinence as measured by voiding diary parameters, complications related to the intervention, re-interventions, and generic quality of life changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00814749.