Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The impact of concurrent pelvic organ prolapse reconstructive surgery on midurethral sling procedure outcome.
Ginekol Pol. 2018; 89(4):189-94.GP

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of concurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reconstructive surgery on midurethral sling (MUS) procedure outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present retrospective study included 300 women with urodynamically diagnosed stress urinary incontinence that underwent MUS procedures with or without concurrent POP reconstructive surgery. Patients were divided into four groups according to the performed surgery; 1) transobturator tape (TOT), 2) TOT with POP surgery (anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal hysterectomy), 3) tension free vaginal tape (TVT), 4) TVT with POP surgery. Outcomes of surgeries for each group were evaluated postoperatively at the end of the first and sixth month by performing a cough stress test and also using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ-7) and Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaires. Presence of a negative cough stress test was defined as "Cure". Multivariate regression was used to identify the parameters for surgical failure.

RESULTS

Forty-two, 70, 49 and 139 women underwent isolated TOT, concurrent TOT and POP, isolated TVT and concurrent TVT and POP surgery, respectively. Postoperative UDI-6 score and postoperative cure rate were significantly higher in the only TOT group as compared to the TOT + POP group. However, in multiple regression analysis, women's age, parity, body mass index, menopausal status, preoperative urodynamic parameters, MUS types and presence of any concomitant POP reconstructive surgery were found to have no significant effect on surgical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent POP reconstructive surgery including anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal hysterectomy have no affect MUS procedure outcomes.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Sincan Nafiz Körfez State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. drbugracoskun@gmail.com.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29781073

Citation

Çoşkun, Buğra, et al. "The Impact of Concurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse Reconstructive Surgery On Midurethral Sling Procedure Outcome." Ginekologia Polska, vol. 89, no. 4, 2018, pp. 189-94.
Çoşkun B, Aksakal OS, Çoşkun B, et al. The impact of concurrent pelvic organ prolapse reconstructive surgery on midurethral sling procedure outcome. Ginekol Pol. 2018;89(4):189-94.
Çoşkun, B., Aksakal, O. S., Çoşkun, B., Yurtçu, E., Akkurt, M. Ö., Kafadar, Ö., & Doğanay, M. (2018). The impact of concurrent pelvic organ prolapse reconstructive surgery on midurethral sling procedure outcome. Ginekologia Polska, 89(4), 189-94. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2018.0032
Çoşkun B, et al. The Impact of Concurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse Reconstructive Surgery On Midurethral Sling Procedure Outcome. Ginekol Pol. 2018;89(4):189-94. PubMed PMID: 29781073.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The impact of concurrent pelvic organ prolapse reconstructive surgery on midurethral sling procedure outcome. AU - Çoşkun,Buğra, AU - Aksakal,Orhan S, AU - Çoşkun,Bora, AU - Yurtçu,Engin, AU - Akkurt,Mehmet Özgür, AU - Kafadar,Özgül, AU - Doğanay,Melike, PY - 2017/12/23/received PY - 2018/04/10/accepted PY - 2018/03/31/revised PY - 2018/5/22/entrez PY - 2018/5/22/pubmed PY - 2018/7/26/medline KW - concomitant surgery KW - midurethral sling KW - outcome KW - pelvic organ prolapse SP - 189 EP - 94 JF - Ginekologia polska JO - Ginekol Pol VL - 89 IS - 4 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of concurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reconstructive surgery on midurethral sling (MUS) procedure outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present retrospective study included 300 women with urodynamically diagnosed stress urinary incontinence that underwent MUS procedures with or without concurrent POP reconstructive surgery. Patients were divided into four groups according to the performed surgery; 1) transobturator tape (TOT), 2) TOT with POP surgery (anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal hysterectomy), 3) tension free vaginal tape (TVT), 4) TVT with POP surgery. Outcomes of surgeries for each group were evaluated postoperatively at the end of the first and sixth month by performing a cough stress test and also using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ-7) and Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaires. Presence of a negative cough stress test was defined as "Cure". Multivariate regression was used to identify the parameters for surgical failure. RESULTS: Forty-two, 70, 49 and 139 women underwent isolated TOT, concurrent TOT and POP, isolated TVT and concurrent TVT and POP surgery, respectively. Postoperative UDI-6 score and postoperative cure rate were significantly higher in the only TOT group as compared to the TOT + POP group. However, in multiple regression analysis, women's age, parity, body mass index, menopausal status, preoperative urodynamic parameters, MUS types and presence of any concomitant POP reconstructive surgery were found to have no significant effect on surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent POP reconstructive surgery including anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal hysterectomy have no affect MUS procedure outcomes. SN - 0017-0011 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29781073/The_impact_of_concurrent_pelvic_organ_prolapse_reconstructive_surgery_on_midurethral_sling_procedure_outcome_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -