Search

Introduction and Objectives: Relevant, meaningful, and achievable data points are critical in objectively assessing quality, utility, and outcomes in female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery. A minimum data set female SUI surgery studies was proposed by the first American Urological Association guidelines on the surgical management of female SUI in 1997, but recommendation adherence has been suboptimal. The Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgical Publication Working Group (WG) was created from members of several prominent organizations to formulate a recommended standard of study structure, description, and minimum outcome data set to be utilized in designing and publishing future SUI studies. The goal of this WG was to create a body of evidence better able to assess the outcomes of female SUI surgery., Methods: The WG reviewed the minimum data set proposed in the 1997 AUA SUI Guideline document, and other relevant literature. The body of literature was examined in the context of the profound changes in the field over the past 25 years. Through a DELPHI process, a standard study structure and minimum data set were generated. Care was taken to balance the value of several meaningful and relevant data points against the burden of creating an excessively difficult or restrictive standard that would disincentivize widespread adoption and negatively impact manuscript production and acceptance., Results: The WG outlined standardization in four major areas: (1) study design, (2) pretreatment demographics and characterization of the study population, (3) intraoperative events, and (4) posttreatment evaluation, and complications. Forty-two items were evaluated and graded as: STANDARD-must be included; ADDITIONAL-may be included for a specific study and is inclusive of the Standard items; OPTIMAL-may be included for a comprehensive study and is inclusive of the Standard and Additional items; UNNECESSARY/LEGACY-not relevant., Conclusions: A reasonable, achievable, and clinically meaningful minimum data set has been constructed. A structured framework will allow future surgical interventions for female SUI to be objectively scrutinized and compared in a clinically significant manner. Ultimately, such a data set, if adopted by the academic community, will enhance the quality of the scientific literature, and ultimately improve short and long-term outcomes for female patients undergoing surgery to correct SUI., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC, by Elsevier B.V on behalf of International Continence Society, and by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of American Urogynecologic Society.)

Aims: To assess surgical outcomes of concomitant treatment of SUI at time of transvaginal urethral diverticulectomy (TVUD) based on a selective approach., Methods: Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we identified patients with a UD and SUI who underwent TVUD between July 2004 and January 2016. SUI was documented before and after surgery using subjective and objective parameters. Autologous pubovaginal slings (APVS) were used selectively based on surgeon and patient preference., Results: A total of 61 patients underwent surgical treatment of urethral diverticula; 39 patients with UD and concomitant SUI. Mean age was 53 years. Mean follow-up was 16.2 months. There were 24 patients (62%) with SUI that underwent concomitant APVS. There was resolution of SUI in 20 of 24 patients (83%) who underwent a simultaneous APVS compared to 8 of 15 patients (53%) who underwent TVUD without APVS. Surgery resulted in the improvement or resolution of the majority of preoperative symptoms including recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) (82% vs 15%), dyspareunia (64% vs 8%), and urgency (56% vs 13%) (preoperative vs postoperative)., Conclusions: Female UD is often associated with SUI. Concomitant surgical treatment of UD and SUI often results in satisfactory control of bothersome SUI as well as other urinary symptoms such as UTI, dyspareunia and urgency. Treatment of SUI with APVS when undergoing TVUD is feasible with satisfactory outcomes., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: We reviewed the outcomes of the autologous fascial pubovaginal sling as a salvage procedure for recurrent stress incontinence after intervention for polypropylene mesh erosion/exposure and/or bladder outlet obstruction in patients treated with prior transvaginal synthetic mesh for stress urinary incontinence., Materials and Methods: In a review of surgical databases at 2 institutions between January 2007 and June 2013 we identified 46 patients who underwent autologous fascial pubovaginal sling following removal of transvaginal synthetic mesh in simultaneous or staged fashion. This cohort of patients was evaluated for outcomes, including subjective and objective success, change in quality of life and complications between those who underwent staged vs concomitant synthetic mesh removal with autologous fascial pubovaginal sling placement., Results: All 46 patients had received at least 1 prior mesh sling for incontinence and 8 (17%) had received prior transvaginal polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair. A total of 30 patients underwent concomitant mesh incision with or without partial excision and autologous sling placement while 16 underwent staged autologous sling placement. Mean followup was 16 months. Of the patients 22% required a mean of 1.8 subsequent interventions an average of 6.5 months after autologous sling placement with no difference in median quality of life at final followup. At last followup 42 of 46 patients (91%) and 35 of 46 (76%) had achieved objective and subjective success, respectively. There was no difference in subjective success between patients treated with a staged vs a concomitant approach (69% vs 80%, p = 0.48)., Conclusions: Autologous fascial pubovaginal sling placement after synthetic mesh removal can be performed successfully in patients with stress urinary incontinence as a single or staged procedure., (Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)