Advertisement

A randomized controlled trial comparing two voiding trials after midurethral sling with or without colporrhaphy

  • Kathryn S. Williams
  • Marjorie L. Pilkinton
  • Dara F. Shalom
  • Harvey A. Winkler
Original Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare the force of the stream (FOS) voiding trial with the standard voiding trial (SVT) after outpatient midurethral sling (MUS) whether or not colporrhaphy was performed.

Methods

This is a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of patients scheduled for MUS or colporrhaphy. Sample size of 102 patients was calculated for 80% power. Patients were randomized to FOS or SVT. Primary outcome was the number of unexpected postoperative visits (UPOVs) for voiding dysfunction (VD) or urinary tract infection (UTI). Voiding dysfunction was defined as urinary retention or post-void residual (PVR) > 200 cc. Subjects rated FOS using a visual analog scale (VAS). Criterion for non-inferiority was an upper limit of < 10% for the 95% CI. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute. Cary, NC).

Results

One hundred two subjects were included (49 FOS, 53 SVT). Immediate postoperative catheterization for FOS and SVT was 8.2% (n = 4) and 9.4% (n = 5), respectively. Recovery time was significantly less for FOS versus SVT (p = 0.0002). Total UPOVs were five (10.2%) and two (3.8%) for FOS and SVT, respectively. Two FOS subjects who had MUS + colporrhaphy passed their VT and had subsequent UPOVs for VD. No evidence of non-inferiority was noted when comparing FOS to SVT for total UPOVs: CI: 6.0% (−5.2, 17.2) for postoperative VD [CI: 6.1% (−4.0, 16.2)] or UTIs [CI: 0.3% (−9.4, 10.1)].

Conclusions

No evidence of non-inferiority was noted comparing FOS with SVT for unexpected postoperative visits for voiding dysfunction or UTI. This study shows the need for larger studies to assess the use of the FOS method in patients undergoing surgery for prolapse with or without MUS.

Keywords

Force of stream Postoperative voiding trials Pelvic organ prolapse Midurethral sling Voiding dysfunction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Meredith Akerman, MS; Senior Biostatistician; Biostatistics Unit, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research 350 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY, 11030. No financial compensation was provided.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Harvey A. Winkler, MD, is a consultant for Contipi and Boston Scientific and an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. All other authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bai SW, Jeon MJ, Kim JY, Chung KA, Kim SK, Park KH. Relationship between stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2002;13:256–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swartz M, Vasavada S, Goldman HB. Perioperative management of patients undergoing sling surgery: a survey of US urologists. J Urol. 2010;76:317–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dieter AA, Amundsen CL, Visco AG, Siddiqui NY. Treatment for urinary tract infection after midurethral sling: a retrospective study comparing patients who receive short-term postoperative catheterization and patients who pass a void trial on the day of surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:175–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, FitzGerald MP, Shott S, Brubaker L. Patient-selected goals: a new perspective on surgical outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1551–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tunitsky-Bitton E, Murphy A, Barber MD, Goldman HB, Vasavada S, Jelovsek JE. Assessment of voiding after sling: a randomized trial of 2 methods of postoperative catheter management after midurethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:597.e1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ostergard DR, Bent AE. Urogynecology & urodynamics theory & practice, vol. 88. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 564–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kleeman S, Goldwasser S, Vassallo B, Karram M. Predicting postoperative voiding efficiency after operation for incontinence and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pulvino JQ, Duecy EE, Buchsbaum GM, Flynn MK. Comparison of 2 techniques to predict voiding efficiency after inpatient urogynecologic surgery. J Urol. 2010;184:1408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ingber MS, Vasavada SP, Moore CK, Rackley RR, Firoozi F, Goldman HB. Force of stream after sling therapy: safety and efficacy of rapid discharge care pathway based on subjective patient report. J Urol. 2011;185:993–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kokabi R, Fereidouni Z, Meshkibaf MH, Miladpoor B. Postoperative voiding efficacy after anterior colporrhaphy. Acta Med Iran. 2010;48:33–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung SM, Moon YJ, Jeon MJ, Kim SK, Bai SW. Risk factors associated with voiding dysfunction after anti-incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1505–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Book NM, Novi B, Novi JM, Pulvino JQ. Postoperative voiding dysfunction following posterior colporrhaphy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:32–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang R, Won S, Haviland MJ, Von Bargen E, Hacker MR, Li J, et al. VT outcome following pelvic floor repair without incontinence procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1215–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn S. Williams
    • 1
  • Marjorie L. Pilkinton
    • 1
  • Dara F. Shalom
    • 1
  • Harvey A. Winkler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive SurgeryNorthwell Health at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of MedicineGreat NeckUSA

Personalised recommendations