Advertisement

Urodynamic findings and functional outcomes after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse

  • Ester Illiano
  • Franca Natale
  • Antonella Giannantoni
  • Marilena Gubbiotti
  • Matteo Balzarro
  • Elisabetta CostantiniEmail author
Original Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes and urodynamic findings after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) in patients with stages II–IV pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

In this single-center prospective study, we evaluated 63 women (mean age 62.5 ± 7.5 years) women with symptomatic and advanced POP (stage II–IV) who underwent LSC without concomitant anti-incontinence surgery. The preoperative evaluation incuded history, clinical examination, and urodynamic testing. Women were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and then annually using history, examination, and uroflowmetry. At 6 months, we performed urodynamic testing. To evaluate urinary symptoms, we used the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI)-6 questionnaire before and 6 months after surgery.

Results

Median follow- up was 22 months (range 8–48). After surgery, maximum flow (Qmax) significantly improved compared with baseline (14.17 ± 2.3 vs 27 ± 8.4 ml/s; p = 0.02), and the percentage of patients with elevated postvoid residual (PVR) significantly decreased (33.3% vs 11.1%; p = 0.001). Detrusor overactivity and bladder outlet obstruction disappeared in 73.6% and 85.7% of patients, respectively, while detrusor underactivity persisted in 66.6% of women. Twenty women (31.7%) reported stress urinary incontinence (SUI) before surgery (14 clinically evident and 6 as occult form), which persisted in only 7/20 (11%) patients following LSC, with no de novo cases. The most common preoperative symptoms were voiding symptoms, present in 42/63 (66.6%) patients, which resolved in 36 (85.7%). The overactive bladder syndrome disappeared in 60% of women, with no de novo cases. Results were reflected by a significant decrease in UDI-6 score from a median of 16 (0–45) at baseline to 5.5 (0–17) at the final follow-up (p = 0.001). The domain on storage symptoms (median 3 vs 1) and voiding symptoms (median 3 vs 1) of UDI-6 showed an improvement after surgery (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The urodynamic finding showed that LSC in women with advanced POP provides good functional outcomes.

Keywords

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy Advanced pelvic organ prolapse Urodynamic testing Functional outcomes Stress urinary incontinence Overactive bladder 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    De Boer TA, Salvatore S, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):30–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kummeling MT, Rietbergen JB, Withagen MI, et al. Sequential urodynamic assessment before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(2):172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanasaki H, Oride A, Mitsuo T, et al. Occurrence of pre and postoperative stress urinary incontinence in 105 patients who underwent tension-free vaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse:a retrospective study. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014:643495.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rozet F, Mandron E, Arroyo C, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genito-urinary prolapse: experience with 363 cases. Eur Urol. 2005;47(2):230–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    El Hamamsy D, Fayyad AM. (2015). New onset stress urinary incontinence following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and its relation to anatomical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 26(7):1041–1045.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abdullah B, Nomura J, Moriyama S, et al. Clinical and urodynamic assessment in patients with pelvic organ prolapse before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1543–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). Neurourol Urodynam. 2016;35:137–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Artibani W, Pesce F, Prezioso D, et al. FLOWStudy group. Italian validation of the urogenital distress inventory and its application in LUTS patients. Eur Urol. 2006;50:1323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Zucchi A, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1563–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. International continence society. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:261–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosier PFWM, Schaefer W, Lose G, et al. International continence society good urodynamic practices and terms 2016: Urodynamics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study. Neurourol Urodynam. 2016;9999:1–18.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Defreitas GA, Zimmern PE. Refining diagnosis of anatomic female bladder outlet obstruction: comparison of pressure-flow study parameters in clinically obstructed women with those of normal controls. Urology. 2004;64(4):675–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Griffiths D. Detrusor contractility--order out of chaos. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl (215). 2004:93–100.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Long CY, Hsu SC, Sun DJ, et al. Abnormal clinical and urodynamic findings in women with severe genitourinary prolapse. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2002;18:593–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coates KW, Harris RL, Cundiff GW, et al. Uroflowmetry in women withurinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Br J Urol. 1997;80:217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fernando RJ, Thakar R, Sultan AH, et al. Effect of vaginal pessaries onsymptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol108. 2006;51:93–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Basu M, Duckett J. Effect of prolapse repair on voiding and the relationship to overactive bladder and detrusor overactivity. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic FloorDysfunct. 2009;20(5):499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jorgensen L, Lose G, Molsted-Pedersen L. Vaginal repair in female motor urge incontinence. Eur Urol. 1987;13:382–5.59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miede A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, et al. A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic FloorDysfunct. 2008;19:1593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fletcher SG, Haverkorn RM, Yan J, et al. Demographic and urodynamic factors associated with persistent OAB after anterior compartment prolapse repair. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(8):1414–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Araki I, Haneda Y, Mikami Y, et al. Incontinence and detrusor dysfunction associated with pelvic organ prolapse: clinical value of preoperative urodynamic evaluation. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:1301–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Zucchi A. Urgency, detrusor overactivity and posterior vault prolapse in women who underwent pelvic organ prolapse repair. Urol Int. 2013;90(2):168–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saito M, Yokoi K, Ohmura M, et al. Effects of partial outflow obstruction on bladder contractility and blood flow to the detrusor: comparison between mild and severe obstruction. Urol Int. 1997;59(4):226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levin RM, Longhurst PA, Barasha B, et al. Studies on experimental bladder outlet obstruction in thecat: long-term functional effects. J Urol. 1992;148(3):939–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse repair with and without concomitant Burch colposuspension in incontinent women: a randomized controlled trial with at least 5-year follow-up. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:967923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serati M, Giarenis J, Meschia M, Cardozo L. Role of urodynamics before prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:165–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hwang SM, de Toledo LGM, da Silva Carramão S. Is urodynamics necessary to identify occult stress urinary incontinence? World J Urol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2366-8.
  29. 29.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A. International Consultation on Incontinence 2016 ICUD/ICS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Andrology and Urogynecological Clinic, Santa Maria Hospital TerniUniversity of PerugiaTerniItaly
  2. 2.Urogynecology UnitSan Carlo di Nancy HospitalRomeItaly
  3. 3.Urology Clinic,Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital PerugiaUniversity of PerugiaTerniItaly
  4. 4.AOUI Verona, Urology ClinicUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations