Advertisement

Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence

  • Kai-Wen Chuang
  • Farzeen FirooziEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has a reported prevalence between 12.8 and 46 %. There is no doubt that SUI has been shown to negatively impact the everyday quality of life (QOL) of the women who suffer from this dysfunction. The economic burden for the treatment of urinary incontinence has been estimated to be approximately 19 billion annually in the United States. Risk factors for the development of SUI include age, obesity, previous pelvic surgery, and childbirth. Surgical management of SUI is the standard of care once conservative options, such as behavioral modification, pelvic floor exercises, fluids modification, and scheduled voiding, have been exhausted. The surgical options have evolved over the last few decades to include the Burch colposuspension, periurethral bulking agents, pubovaginal slings, and the newest multitude of approaches for midurethral synthetic slings. The synthetic slings include retropubic, transobturator, and the newest additions which include the so-called single-incision slings. The aims of this chapter include the evaluation and management of SUI and review each of the surgical techniques currently available to pelvic floor surgeons.

Keywords

Stress Urinary Incontinence Vaginal Wall Detrusor Overactivity Foley Catheter Absorbable Suture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Botlero R, Urquhart DM, Davis SR, Bell RJ. Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence in women: review of the literature and investigation of methodological issues. Int J Urol. 2008;15(3):230–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coyne KS, Zhou Z, Thompson C, Versi E. The impact on health-related quality of life of stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2003;92(7):731–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu TW, Wagner TH, Bentkover JD, Leblanc K, Zhou SZ, Hunt T. Costs of urinary incontinence and overactive bladder in the United States: a comparative study. Urology. 2004;63(3):461–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ogah J, Cody JD, Rogerson L. Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4, CD006375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, et al. Fourth international consultation on incontinence recommendations of the international scientific committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):213–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leach GE, Dmochowski RR, Appell RA, et al. Female stress urinary incontinence clinical guidelines panel summary report on surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. The American Urological Association. J Urol. 1997;158(3 Pt 1):875–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    BURCH JC. Urethrovaginal fixation to cooper’s ligament for correction of stress incontinence, cystocele, and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961;81:281–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanagho EA. Colpocystourethropexy: the way we do it. J Urol. 1976;116(6):751–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lapitan MC, Cody JD. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6, CD002912.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Keskin HL, Gelisen O, Dolen I. The management of recurrent cases after the burch colposuspension: 7 years experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(4):787–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walter AJ, Morse AN, Hammer RA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open burch retropubic urethropexy: comparison of morbidity and costs when performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(4):723–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demirci F, Petri E. Perioperative complications of Burch colposuspension. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2000;11(3):170–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanton SL, Cardozo LD. Results of the colposuspension operation for incontinence and prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979;86(9):693–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langer R, Lipshitz Y, Halperin R, Pansky M, Bukovsky I, Sherman D. Long-term (10-15 years) follow-up after Burch colposuspension for urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(5):323–6. discussion 326-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alcalay M, Monga A, Stanton SL. Burch colposuspension: a 10-20 year follow up. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102(9):740–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiskind AK, Creighton SM, Stanton SL. The incidence of genital prolapse after the Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167(2):399–404. discussion 404-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGuire EJ, Cespedes RD, O'Connell HE. Leak-point pressures. Urol Clin North Am. 1996;23(2):253–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rovner ES, Ginsberg DA, Raz S. Why anti-incontinence surgery succeeds or fails. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;41(3):719–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pannek J, Brands FH, Senge T. Particle migration after transurethral injection of carbon coated beads for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2001;166(4):1350–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lightner D, Calvosa C, Andersen R, et al. A new injectable bulking agent for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind study of durasphere. Urology. 2001;58(1):12–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayer R, Lightfoot M, Jung I. Preliminary evaluation of calcium hydroxylapatite as a transurethral bulking agent for stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2001;57(3):434–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ter Meulen PH, Berghmans LC, van Kerrebroeck PE. Systematic review: efficacy of silicone microimplants (Macroplastique) therapy for stress urinary incontinence in adult women. Eur Urol. 2003;44(5):573–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Madjar S, Sharma AK, Waltzer WC, Frischer Z, Secrest CL. Periurethral mass formations following bulking agent injection for the treatment of urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1408–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lai HH, Hurtado EA, Appell RA. Large urethral prolapse formation after calcium hydroxylapatite (coaptite) injection. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(9):1315–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Albo ME, Litman HJ, Richter HE, et al. Treatment success of retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings at 24 months. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2281–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Welk BK, Herschorn S. The autologous fascia pubovaginal sling for complicated female stress incontinence. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6(1):36–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gomelsky A, Dmochowski RR. Bladder neck pubovaginal slings. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2005;2(3):327–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P, Varhos G. An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996;7(2):81–5. discussion 85-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fong ED, Nitti VW. Review article: Mid-urethral synthetic slings for female stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2010;106(5):596–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petros PP, Ulmsten U. An anatomical classification–a new paradigm for management of female lower urinary tract dysfunction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;80(1):87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Novara G, Artibani W, Barber MD, et al. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on colposuspensions, pubovaginal slings, and midurethral tapes in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2010;58(2):218–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kenton K, Stoddard AM, Zyczynski H et al. 5-year Logitudinal follow-up after retropbubic and transobturator midurethral slings. J Urol. 2014 Aug 23 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morton HC, Hilton P. Urethral injury associated with minimally invasive mid-urethral sling procedures for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A case series and systematic literature search. BJOG. 2009;116(8):1120–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cornu JN, Lizee D, Sebe P, et al. TVT SECUR single-incision sling after 5 years of follow-up: the promises made and the promises broken. Eur Urol. 2012;62(4):737–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kennelly MJ, Moore R, Nguyen JN, Lukban JC, Siegel S. Prospective evaluation of a single incision sling for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2010;184(2):604–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyNorth Shore—Long Island Jewish Health SystemNew Hyde ParkUSA
  2. 2.Hofstra North Shore—LIJ School of MedicineThe Smith Institute for UrologyLake SuccessUSA

Personalised recommendations