The negative predictive value of preoperative urodynamics for stress urinary incontinence following prolapse surgery

  • Tania Sierra
  • Gina Sullivan
  • Katherine Leung
  • Michael Flynn
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

There is no consensus for the evaluation of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in patients planning pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. We sought to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of prolapse reduction during preoperative urodynamics (UDS) for postoperative SUI.


We performed a retrospective study of 322 women with preoperative UDS and subsequent POP surgery. Abstracted data included demographics, prolapse stage, prior prolapse or incontinence surgery, preoperative SUI complaint, prolapse reduction method, and length of follow-up. Any woman who reported SUI symptoms within 6 months from surgery was considered a diagnostic UDS failure. The NPV was calculated by dividing the number of patients who did not demonstrate SUI on UDS and had no postoperative SUI by the number of patients who did not demonstrate SUI on UDS.


Patient characteristics (age, race, parity, prolapse stage, prior surgery, and length of follow-up) were similar among those who had urodynamic-proven SUI and those who did not. The NPV of preoperative UDS for postoperative SUI in patients undergoing any POP repair was 97.9.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7–99.7%]. The NPV remained high in the subset of patients who underwent an apical suspension—98.6% (95% CI 92.7–100.0%)—as well as those without a preoperative SUI complaint—98.6% (95% CI 92.3–100.0%). In most patients (72.9%), a ring pessary with support combined with intraprocedural manipulation allowed for reliable stress testing.


Our study supports using preoperative UDS as a screening tool to avoid unnecessary concomitant continence procedures. Further studies are needed to individualize patient preoperative assessment and surgical counseling.


Screening Stress urinary incontinence Urodynamics 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Bai SW, Jeon MJ, Kim JY, et al. Relationship between stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13(4):256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richardson ML, Elliott CS, Shaw JG, et al. To sling or not to sling at time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1306–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins CW, Winters JC. American Urological Association, Society of Urodynamics Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction. AUA/SUFU adult urodynamics guideline: a clinical review. Urol Clin N Am. 2014;41(3):353–62 vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duecy EE, Pulvino JQ, McNanley AR, et al. Urodynamic prediction of occult stress urinary incontinence before vaginal surgery for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: evaluation of postoperative outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(4):215–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elser DM, Moen MD, Stanford EJ, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and urinary incontinence: surgical planning based on urodynamics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):375.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Visco AG, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. 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. 2008;19(5):607–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jelovsek JE, Chagin K, Brubaker L, et al. A model for predicting the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 0 1):279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sinha D, Arunkalaivanan AS. Prevalence of occult stress incontinence in continent women with severe genital prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27(2):174–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chaikin DC, Groutz A, Blaivas JG. Predicting the need for anti-incontinence surgery in continent women undergoing repair of severe urogenital prolapse. J Urol. 2000;163(2):531–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mueller ER, Kenton K, Mahajan S, et al. Urodynamic prolapse reduction alters urethral pressure but not filling or pressure flow parameters. J Urol. 2007;177(2):600–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roovers JP, Oelke M. Clinical relevance of urodynamic investigation tests prior to surgical correction of genital prolapse: a literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(4):455–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania Sierra
    • 1
  • Gina Sullivan
    • 1
  • Katherine Leung
    • 1
  • Michael Flynn
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations