Analgesia Using Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation in Office Bladder Chemodenervation, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Office bladder chemodenervation, performed via cystoscopy with intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) injections, is a common treatment for overactive bladder/urge urinary incontinence. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) has shown to provide analgesia during office hysteroscopy. Adjuvant analgesia using TENS during bladder chemodenervation has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The primary outcome is a clinically significant (10-mm) difference in pain visual analog scale (VAS) measurements during injections for chemodenervation using active TENS compared with placebo TENS. We hypothesize that active TENS use will significantly change pain VAS scores. Secondary outcomes include 5-point pain Likert scale, satisfaction 10-point scale, and adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blind randomized control trial of men and women with urinary urge incontinence undergoing office chemodenervation performed in an academic and private setting. Participants were randomized into 2 groups: chemodenervation with active TENS or placebo TENS. Power calculation determined 100 patients would be required detect a difference of 10 mm on pain VAS. RESULTS: One hundred one (85 female and 16 male) participants were recruited. No differences were noted in the demographics. Participants in the active TENS group reported a difference of greater than 10 mm in pain VAS scores (48 ± 23 vs 31 ± 23, P = 0.01). Satisfaction index scores were high but no difference was noted between groups (8.6 vs 8.7, P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Most participants were eligible to use TENS units. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation is a safe and noninvasive adjuvant analgesia option for patients undergoing this procedure. Lower pain levels and high satisfaction rates suggest that this is an additional analgesic option during outpatient chemodenervation.

Surgical Removal of Midurethral Sling in Women Undergoing Surgery for Presumed Mesh-Related Complications: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether some, or all, of the mesh needs to be removed when a midurethral sling is removed for complications. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from January 1, 1996, through May 1, 2021, were searched for articles that met the eligibility criteria with total, partial, or a combination of anti-incontinence mesh removal. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: All study designs were included (N≥10), and a priori criteria were used for acceptance standards. Studies were extracted for demographics, operative outcomes, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed when possible. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We double-screened 11,887 abstracts; 45 eligible and unique studies were identified. Thirty-five were single-group studies that evaluated partial mesh removal, five were single-group studies that evaluated total mesh removal, and five were studies that compared partial mesh removal with total mesh removal. All of the studies were retrospective in nature; there were no randomized controlled studies. Comparative studies demonstrated that partial mesh removal had lower rates of postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) than total mesh removal (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96). Single-group studies supported lower rates of postoperative SUI with partial mesh removal compared with total mesh removal (19.2% [95% CI 13.5-25.7] vs 48.7% [95% CI 31.2-66.4]). Both methods were similar with respect to associated pain, bladder outlet obstruction, mesh erosion or exposure, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Adverse events were infrequent. CONCLUSION: Postoperative SUI may be lower with partial mesh removal compared with total mesh removal. Other outcomes were similar regardless of the amount of mesh removed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD 42018093099.

Pelvic Floor Organ Prolapse After Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Uroepithelial Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify whether women who undergo a radical cystectomy for uroepithelial carcinoma are at increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse after surgical treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared female subjects who had undergone a radical cystectomy for uroepithelial carcinoma, as identified through an institutional cancer survivor database, with subjects who presented to the Pelvic Health and Continence Clinic with symptoms of either uterovaginal prolapse or urinary incontinence. Demographic data were collected regarding risk factors for prolapse, and study subjects were asked to complete a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6). Data were collected through retrospective chart review. The primary outcome is difference in the POPDI-6 between the groups. Statistical evaluation of responses was performed, with analysis of variance used to compare the questionnaire scores between groups and correction for risk factors with χ2 tests, with a P value of 0.05 selected for statistical significance. RESULTS: There were 36 postcystectomy subjects who responded to the survey, 37 subjects in the prolapse group, and 44 subjects in the incontinence group. With correction for age, body mass index, and number of vaginal deliveries, the postcystectomy group reported significantly lower scores on the POPDI-6 than both the prolapse group (P < 0.0001) and the incontinence group (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Radical cystectomy for uroepithelial carcinoma does not correlate with an increased risk of patient-reported symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse.

Barriers to urogynecological care in a population of gynecological oncology patients.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to identify barriers to urogynecological evaluation in a population of new patients presenting to a gynecological oncology practice with symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction. METHODS: A pelvic floor dysfunction screening questionnaire was given to new patients presenting to a university-based gynecological oncology practice between 1 August 2010 and 31 August 2012. Patients indicating symptoms related to pelvic floor dysfunction in the survey were offered urogynecological evaluations. Charts of those patients declining further evaluation were reviewed. Results of the pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaires were assessed. Reasons provided for not desiring further evaluation were extracted from the questionnaire and stratified. RESULTS: A total of 549 surveys were reviewed. Two hundred and thirty-six patients (42.0 %) of the patients surveyed reported being bothered by pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms. Only 6.7 % (16 out of 236) wanted a referral for an urogynecological evaluation; 93.2 % declined an evaluation. Of patients reporting moderate to severe bother from pelvic floor symptoms, the most frequently cited barrier to care was feeling overwhelmed with the current medical situation (28 %). Other reasons for declining an urogynecological evaluation included a previous evaluation (14 %), financial concerns (6.9 %), and believing that oncological treatment would cure pelvic floor symptoms (6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life after cancer treatment is important. The ability to provide treatment for gynecological cancer and pelvic floor disorders concomitantly has the potential to improve the quality of life in this patient population. Understanding barriers to care of gynecological oncology patients seeking evaluation for conditions affecting their quality of life is essential in alleviating fears, preventing misconceptions, and for making informed decisions.

Sodium fluorescein use during intraoperative cystoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Indigotindisulfonate sodium has been used during cystoscopy to identify the ureteral meatuses and to verify ureteral efflux during pelvic surgery. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the shortage of indigotindisulfonate sodium in June 2014. Surgeons have since been searching for safe alternatives with comparable visualization and an economically favorable profile. METHOD: The recent shortage of indigotindisulfonate sodium prompted our search for alternative options for visualizing ureteral patency during intraoperative cystoscopy. Multiple methods were considered, including instilling the bladder with D50 water, sterile water, or methylene blue-tinged saline and visualizing the contrast in either viscosity or color of the urine against the instilled medium, preoperative oral phenazopyridine, and intravenous methylene blue. Collectively, these methods proved suboptimal. As an alternative, we injected the 10% preparation of sodium fluorescein at 0.25-1 mL intravenously and observed a brilliant yellow ureteral jet minutes after injection (see Video 1). EXPERIENCE: Ten percent sodium fluorescein given intravenously in doses ranging from 0.25 to 1.0 cc results in good visualization of ureteral jets. One patient experienced transient yellowing of the sclera and palms. CONCLUSION: Sodium fluorescein is an effective alternative to indigotindisulfonate sodium for visualization of ureteral jets during intraoperative cystoscopy.