Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative stress urinary incontinence following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in patients with negative preoperative prolapse reduction stress testing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence of postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) in women with negative preoperative prolapse reduction stress testing (PPRST) and to identify associated risk factors.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study comprising women who consecutively underwent double-mesh LSCP without concomitant SUI surgery after a negative PPRST at a tertiary referral center. Negative PPRST was defined by the absence of SUI during cough testing and urodynamic studies with prolapse reduction.

Results

Fifty-five patients were assessed in the final analysis. No significant complication was encountered during and after LSCP. Mean follow-up was 25 ± 11 (range 12–48) months. No patient developed recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or mesh erosion at last follow-up. Thirty (54.5 %) patients reported the symptom of SUI (subjective SUI) postoperatively, 13 (23.6 %) had a positive cough test (objective SUI) at last visit, and nine (16.4 %) underwent a sling procedure. In univariate analyses, advanced cystocele (stage 3–4) and a history of patient-reported SUI before surgery were associated with a higher risk of postoperative subjective and objective SUI after LSCP. Multivariate analyses identified preoperative SUI as the sole independent predictor of subjective SUI [risk ratio (RR = 4.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16–14.09), objective SUI, (RR = 4.67; 95% CI = 1.14–19.23), and subsequent anti-SUI surgery after LSCP (RR = 6.17; 95% CI = 1.30–29.41).

Conclusions

SUI is far from uncommon in women after LSCP despite negative PPRST, especially in those with advanced cystocele and a history of SUI preoperatively; after at least 1 year of follow-up, approximately one in six women eventually underwent a sling surgery. These data are useful for counseling patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bai SW, Jeon MJ, Kim JY, Chung KA, Kim SK, Park KH (2002) Relationship between stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13:256–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Roovers JP, Oelke M (2007) Clinical relevance of urodynamic investigation tests prior to surgical correction of genital prolapse: a literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:455–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Steen A, van der Ploeg M, Dijkgraaf MG, van der Vaart H, Roovers JP (2010) Protocol for the CUPIDO trials; multicenter randomized controlled trials to assess the value of combining prolapse surgery and incontinence surgery in patients with genital prolapse and evident stress incontinence (CUPIDO I) and in patients with genital prolapse and occult stress incontinence (CUPIDO II). BMC Womens Health 10:16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosenzweig BA, Pushkin S, Blumenfeld D, Bhatia NN (1992) Prevalence of abnormal urodynamic test results in continent women with severe genitourinary prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 79:539–542

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Reena C, Kekre AN, Kekre N (2007) Occult stress incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 97:31–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ballert KN, Biggs GY, Isenalumhe A Jr, Rosenblum N, Nitti VW (2009) Managing the urethra at transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a urodynamic approach. J Urol 181:679–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P et al (2006) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 354:1557–1566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Borstad E, Abdelnoor M, Staff AC, Kulseng-Hanssen S (2010) Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 21:179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Visco AG, Brubaker L, Nygaard I et al (2008) The role of preoperative urodynamic testing in stress-continent women undergoing sacrocolpopexy: the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) randomized surgical trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:607–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Elser DM, Moen MD, Stanford EJ et al (2010) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and urinary incontinence: surgical planning based on urodynamics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(375):e371–e375

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kasturi S, Diaz SI, McDermott CD et al (2011) De novo stress urinary incontinence after negative prolapse reduction stress testing for total vaginal mesh procedures: incidence and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205(487):e481–e484

    Google Scholar 

  13. Villet R (1995) Les prolapsus génitaux. In: Villet R, Buzelin J-M, Lazorthes F (eds) Les troubles de la statique pelvipérinéale de la femme. Vigot, Paris, pp 119–140

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kenton K (2011) The value of the preoperative prolapse reduction stress test in women without stress incontinence symptoms undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery with or without a TVT: Results of the OPUS trial. Neurourol Urodyn 30:870–871

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ramanah R, Ballester M, Chereau E, Rouzier R, Darai E (2012) Effects of pelvic organ prolapse repair on urinary symptoms: a comparative study between the laparoscopic and vaginal approach. Neurourol Urodyn 31:126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park J, McDermott CD, Terry CL, Bump RC, Woodman PJ, Hale DS (2012) Use of preoperative prolapse reduction stress testing and the risk of a second surgery for urinary symptoms following laparoscopic sacral colpoperineopexy. Int Urogynecol J 23:857–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding sources

None

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Liège, Liege, Belgium

    Julie Leruth, Marc Fillet & David Waltregny

Authors
  1. Julie Leruth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Fillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Waltregny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Waltregny.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leruth, J., Fillet, M. & Waltregny, D. Incidence and risk factors of postoperative stress urinary incontinence following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in patients with negative preoperative prolapse reduction stress testing. Int Urogynecol J 24, 485–491 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1888-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1888-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation