A prospective study investigating the diagnostic agreement between urodynamics and dynamic cystoscopy in women presenting with mixed urinary incontinence.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient history is often insufficient to identify type of urinary incontinence (UI). Multichannel urodynamic testing (UDS) is often used to clarify the diagnosis. Dynamic cystoscopy (DC) is a novel approach for testing bladder function. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic agreement of UDS and DC in evaluating women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). METHODS: Women presenting with MUI were approached for enrollment if UDS and DC were planned for further investigation. Investigators were blinded to history and comparative test results. McNemar's test and kappa coefficient were calculated to assess agreement between UDS and DC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to explore the best possible filling sensation cutoffs for DC that would best predict the filling sensation cutoffs from UDS. RESULTS: Sixty participants were included, of whom, four were excluded for protocol violation. For the primary outcome measure of agreement, UDS and DC were concordant in 44/56 of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) cases (79%) with a κ= 0.54 and in 43/56 of urinary urge incontinence (UUI) cases (77%) with a κ= 0.54, indicating moderate, nearly substantial agreement. ROC analysis identified the best prediction of DC first urge to void as 148 cm3, strong urge 215 cm3, and maximum capacity at 246 cm3. These parameters were used to compare UDS UUI to DC UUI and resulted in a κ = 0.61 (p = 0.37), indicating substantial agreement. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with UDS, DC shows moderate agreement for detection of SUI and substantial agreement for detection of UUI.

Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal.

INTRODUCTION: This review aimed to examine post-intervention prolapse, incontinence, and overactive bladder outcome measures published in the International Urogynecology Journal over the previous year and to report on the heterogeneity in outcome reporting. METHODS: All original article abstracts published in the print version of the International Urogynecology Journal in 2014 were reviewed for possible inclusion. Those reporting on prolapse and/or incontinence and/or overactive bladder outcomes following a urogynecological intervention were analyzed. Articles were reviewed for all reported outcomes. Outcomes were categorized as primary or secondary and objective or subjective. RESULTS: Of 117 original articles published, 45 were reviewed. Among primary outcomes, 9 different outcomes were reported for prolapse and 11 for incontinence and overactive bladder. For prolapse, 6 different objective and 13 subjective outcomes were reported. For incontinence, 21 objective and 36 subjective outcomes were reported. Three different definitions were used for the outcome of "prolapse cure," 3 for "prolapse recurrence," and 4 for "stress incontinence cure." Several validated and non-validated questionnaires in addition to single unvalidated questions were used to measure subjective outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the diversity in outcome reporting for prolapse, incontinence, and overactive bladder after an intervention in the last year of publications alone. This can lead to serious challenges in the generation of higher order evidence, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a subspecialty, we need to aim for more cohesive reporting so as to allow for robust comparison and evidence dissemination.

Two Intraoperative Techniques for Midurethral Sling Tensioning: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of a Mayo Scissor as a suburethral spacer compared with a Babcock clamp holding a loop of tape under the urethra results in different rates of abnormal bladder outcomes 12 months after retropubic midurethral sling surgery. METHODS: The MUST (Mid-Urethral Sling Tensioning) trial was a block-randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial that allocated women to have their retropubic midurethral slings tensioned by Scissor or Babcock technique. The primary outcome (abnormal bladder) was a composite of persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder, and urinary retention. Secondary outcomes included outcomes of the composite, postoperative catheterization, incontinence-related questionnaires, repeat incontinence treatment, and uroflowmetry. Sample size of 159 in each arm (N=318) was planned for a superiority trial, hypothesizing a 10% difference in primary outcome. RESULTS: From September 2015 to December 2017, 506 women were screened and 318 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in each arm. At 12 months, 253 (79.6%) women provided information on primary outcome: 40 of 128 (31.3%) patients with midurethral slings tensioned by Scissor experienced abnormal bladder, compared with 23 of 125 (18.4%) of those with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock (P=.018, relative difference 12.9%). Secondary analyses favored Babcock for median duration of catheterization and the proportions of women experiencing urinary retention requiring sling lysis. Uroflowmetry parameters suggest the Scissor technique is more restrictive. Rates of mesh erosion were lower for the Scissor arm. No differences occurred in proportions of women experiencing patient reported persistent SUI after surgery. CONCLUSION: Abnormal bladder outcomes were 12.9% less frequent for women with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock. Both techniques provided a comparable patient reported cure for SUI at 12 months. Women with midurethral slings tensioned by Scissors experienced more intervention for obstruction, whereas those with midurethral slings tensioned by Babcock experienced higher rates of mesh erosion. This information about how the postoperative courses differ allows surgeons to better counsel patients preoperatively or tailor their choice of technique. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02480231. FUNDING SOURCE: Boston Scientific.

Technical update nº 433: eHealth solutions for urinary incontinence among women

The purpose of this technical update is to establish the state of the science regarding emerging and novel electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) solutions for urinary incontinence among women. Target population Women over 18 years with urinary incontinence. Websites and mobile health applications are useful in the conservative care of urinary incontinence. Relevant care providers should be familiar with such tools, particularly those that use motivational principles for behaviour change, which can be used as adjunct tools for urinary incontinence care. Telemedicine is an effect mode to provide services for the conservative care of urinary incontinence. Use of eHealth and mHealth solutions has potentially significant health outcomes for patients, providers, and global health systems. Broader use of telemedicine, in and of itself, could improve care access and reduce costs incurred by patients and the health care system. Evidence for the efficacy of eHealth and mHealth technologies and applications for urinary incontinence ranges from weak to strong. However, the research landscape for many of these novel solutions is developing rapidly. Furthermore, these options have minimal or no harm and confer an established cost benefit and care access benefit. The Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases (from January 2014 to April 2019) were searched to find articles related to conservative care of urinary incontinence in women (over 18 years) and studies on eHealth and mHealth interventions for urinary incontinence. Articles were appraised, and the collective evidence was graded. The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). Relevant primary care providers and medical specialists, including physicians, nurses, midwives, and pelvic health physiotherapists.