Retrospective Cohort Study of Recovery From Sacrocolpopexy Versus Nonmesh Prolapse Repair.

IMPORTANCE: Providing recovery expectations for prolapse surgery is an important part of patient counseling and aids in patient-centered decision making. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if postoperative recovery from minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) is noninferior to that of native tissue repair. STUDY DESIGN: Recovery at 2 and 6 weeks was quantified using the Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 scale, where higher scores indicate greater patient-perceived recovery. A 2:1 MISCP to native tissue repair ratio was used. The study population was created from 3 prior studies involving patients who underwent prolapse surgery between 2013 and 2021.Independent-samples t test was used for normally distributed data, Mann-Whitney U tests for nonnormally distributed data, and the χ2 test for population proportions. A parsimonious linear regression analysis was performed to determine if the surgical group independently predicted postdischarge surgical recovery at 2 and 6 weeks, after controlling for significant confounders identified during bivariate analysis. RESULTS: The study population included 476 patients: 352 underwent MISCP and 124 underwent native tissue repair.Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 scores for patients who underwent MISCP compared with native tissue repair were higher at 2 weeks (mean, 58.4 ± 18.2 vs 54.4 ± 18.7; P = 0.04) and at 6 weeks postoperatively (mean, 77.2 ± 15.6 vs 73.7 ± 18.7; P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that recovery after MISCP is noninferior to that of native tissue repair. This information is important for delivering patient-centered care during preoperative counseling.

Predictors of Recovery Expectancy in Preparation for Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Cohort Study.

IMPORTANCE: Recovery expectancy is a modifiable predictor of actual recovery after surgery. Identifying predictors of recovery expectancy will allow clinicians to preoperatively modify recovery expectancy and optimize actual recovery. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to identify patient characteristics that predict a patient's recovery expectancy. The secondary objective was to validate previous research demonstrating that recovery expectancy predicted actual recovery. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. Patients completed a preoperative survey to collect data on potential sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial, including investment in life roles, predictors of recovery expectancies. Actual recovery was measured at postoperative weeks 2 and 6. Predictors of recovery expectancy were identified. RESULTS: Two hundred one women were recruited with 174 included in the final analysis. Variables significantly associated with recovery expectancy during bivariate analysis ( P < 0.05) were education level, total prior surgical procedures, pelvic pain, back pain, bodily pain, sick role investment, optimism, satisfaction with participation in social roles, overall social support, job satisfaction, and professionalism. Sick role investment was the only independent predictor of recovery expectancy (F = 3.46, df = 13, P < 0.001). Greater sick role investment was associated with increased probability of prolonged recovery. Patients with low recovery expectancies had less actual recovery compared with patients with high recovery expectancies ( P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed prior work that recovery expectancy predicts actual recovery after reconstructive pelvic surgery and may establish recovery expectancy as a mediator between sick role investment and actual postdischarge surgical recovery.

Comparing Urine Specimen Collection Methods for Urinalysis and Culture Agreement: A Paired Sample Design.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to determine if results from clean catch urine specimens agree with results from catheterized specimens in a urogynecology patient population. The secondary aim was to identify clinical scenarios in which catheterized specimens are preferred over clean catch specimens. METHODS: Both a midstream clean catch and a catheterized specimen were obtained for each participant. Dipstick urinalysis was performed. If either specimen was positive for nitrites, leukocyte esterase, or blood then both were sent for urine culture.Kappa statistics were calculated to measure agreement between the paired specimen data for the total sample and for stratified samples. We agreed to accept clean catch results as preferable to catheterized results if the κ statistic was 0.7 or greater. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-two participants were enrolled. For all participants, the agreement between the paired samples was strong for nitrite (κ = 0.884), moderate for blood and colony count (both κ = 0.656), weak for culture species (κ = 0.566), and minimal for leukocyte esterase (κ = 0.382). When data were stratified for menopause, vaginal estrogen use, body mass index, and prolapse, there were no clinical scenarios in which the κ values were consistently greater than our accepted value of 0.7. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that catheterized urine specimens should be used in the evaluation of urinary tract infection or microscopic hematuria in the typical patient presenting to a urogynecology office who is often menopausal, overweight, and may have prolapse.

Surgical Outcomes in Benign Gynecologic Surgery Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (SOCOVID study).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of perioperative coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in women undergoing benign gynecologic surgery and to evaluate perioperative complication rates in patients with active, previous, or no previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. DESIGN: A multicenter prospective cohort study. SETTING: Ten institutions in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients aged >18 years who underwent benign gynecologic surgery from July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were included. All patients were followed up from the time of surgery to 10 weeks postoperatively. Those with intrauterine pregnancy or known gynecologic malignancy were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Benign gynecologic surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of perioperative COVID-19 infections, which was stratified as (1) previous COVID-19 infection, (2) preoperative COVID-19 infection, and (3) postoperative COVID-19 infection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and mortality after surgery and predictors for postoperative COVID-19 infection. If surgery was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reason for postponement and any subsequent adverse event was recorded. Of 3423 patients included for final analysis, 189 (5.5%) postponed their gynecologic surgery during the pandemic. Forty-three patients (1.3% of total cases) had a history of COVID-19. The majority (182, 96.3%) had no sequelae attributed to surgical postponement. After hospital discharge to 10 weeks postoperatively, 39 patients (1.1%) became infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The mean duration of time between hospital discharge and the follow-up positive COVID-19 test was 22.1 ± 12.3 days (range, 4-50 days). Eleven (31.4% of postoperative COVID-19 infections, 0.3% of total cases) of the newly diagnosed COVID-19 infections occurred within 14 days of hospital discharge. On multivariable logistic regression, living in the Southwest (adjusted odds ratio, 6.8) and single-unit increase in age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2) increased the odds of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Perioperative complications were not significantly higher in patients with a history of positive COVID-19 than those without a history of COVID-19, although the mean duration of time between previous COVID-19 diagnosis and surgery was 97 days (14 weeks). CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter prospective cohort study of benign gynecologic surgeries, only 1.1% of patients developed a postoperative COVID-19 infection, with 0.3% of infection in the immediate 14 days after surgery. The incidence of postoperative complications was not different in those with and without previous COVID-19 infections.

Enhanced Recovery Protocol Enhances Postdischarge Recovery After Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine if an ERAS (enhanced recovery after surgery) protocol enhanced the patient-perceived postdischarge recovery after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients exposed to an ERAS protocol completed a preoperative survey that included established predictors of postdischarge recovery. Postoperatively, they completed the validated Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 (PSR-13) scale at 7, 14, and 42 days. A historical cohort of non-ERAS patients who completed similar surveys were included for comparisons. Characteristics between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using the χ2 test, Student t tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests where appropriate. A mixed-design analysis of variance model was constructed to determine if our ERAS protocol affected recovery as measured by the PSR-13 scale. RESULTS: Eighty-nine ERAS patients were compared with 169 non-ERAS controls. There were no differences in established predictors of recovery between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the ERAS cohort (33±13.1 hours vs 44.2±25.9 hours; mean difference, 11.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.44-16.0). Postdischarge recovery significantly improved with time (7 days: 52.7; 95% CI, 50.1-55.2; 14 days: 63.4; 95% CI, 60.9-65.8; 42 days: 80.1, 95% CI, 78.1-82.1). The ERAS cohort reported greater postdischarge recovery than the non-ERAS cohort (as measured by the PSR-13 scale) at postoperative days 7, 14, and 42 days (68.4 vs 62.3; mean difference, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.04-10.16). CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols reduce length of hospital stay and enhance patient-perceived postdischarge recovery.

Operationalizing Postdischarge Recovery From Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for the Preoperative Consultative Visit.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to establish a threshold for postdischarge surgical recovery from laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the preoperative consultative visit to answer the "what is my recovery time?" question. METHODS: Study participants (N = 171) with stage 2 or worse pelvic organ prolapse undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy who completed postoperative surveys at 4 time points. Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 (PSR13) scores were anchored to a Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) tool (if 100% recovery is back to your usual health, what percentage of recovery are you now?). Weighted mean PSR13 scores were calculated as a sum of the products variable when patients considered themselves 80 to less than 85, 85 to less than 90, 90 to less than 95, or 95 to 100 percent recovered on the GSR tool. The percentage of study participants recovered at postdischarge day 7, 14, 42, and 90 was calculated based on a comparison between the GSR scores and weighted mean PSR13 scores. RESULTS: A PSR13 score of 80 or greater, corresponding to 85% or greater recovery, was seen in 55.6% (42 days) and 50.9% (90 days) of study participants, respectively, establishing this numeric threshold as representing "significant" postdischarge recovery after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. At 14 days after discharge, only 16.4% of the study population achieved this PSR13 score. CONCLUSIONS: Most study subjects were "significantly" recovered at 42 days after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using a PSR13 score of 80 or greater as a numeric threshold. There is a need to determine the population percentage of recovered study subjects at 30, 60, and beyond 90 days from laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Recovery expectancies impact postdischarge recovery 42 days after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine if recovery expectancies were associated with actual postdischarge recovery after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Study subjects (N = 167) undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy were asked to preoperatively predict the likelihood of a prolonged postdischarge recovery (> 42 days). Low, medium, and high recovery expectancy groups were created from responses to the likelihood of prolonged postdischarge recovery question. Previously established predictors of actual recovery 42 days after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy included age, body mass index, Charlson co-morbidity index, short form (SF)-36 bodily pain scores, doctors' and others' health locus of control, and sick role investment. One parsimonious hierarchical linear and logistic regression model was constructed to determine if preoperative recovery expectancies were independently associated with PSR13 scores and "significant" postdischarge recovery after controlling for previously established predictors. RESULTS: Study subjects with high recovery expectancies had higher PSR13 scores than subjects with low recovery expectancies (82.32 ± 15.34 vs 73.30 ± 15.30, mean difference 9.01, 95%CI 1.08-16.94). Study subjects with low recovery expectancies scored 7.7 points lower on the PSR13 scale (minimally important difference = 5), which translated into a 73% reduction in the likelihood of being "significantly" recovered 42 days after surgery, after controlling for previously established predictors. CONCLUSIONS: A low recovery expectancy has a negative impact on actual recovery 42 days after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Our findings are important because preoperative recovery expectancies are modifiable predictors, making them a candidate for an expectancy manipulation intervention designed to optimize recovery after pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Impact of postoperative instructions on physical activity following pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is little information on the impact that postoperative instructions have on physical activity to help guide physicians in providing these recommendations after surgery. Our study objective was to evaluate the impact of postoperative instructions on physical activity. We hypothesized that there would be no differential effect of instructions on activity. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing prolapse repair were randomized to receive either liberal or restricted postoperative activity instructions between February 2017 and February 2019. Physical activity was measured using the Activities Assessment Scale (AAS) and tri-axial accelerometers measured at baseline and 2 and 6 weeks after surgery. A sample size of 146 patients was planned to compare these activity measurements. AAS scores and accelerometer readings of the two groups were compared using separate variance t tests. RESULTS: A total of 157 women were recruited between February 2017 and February 2019, including 146 patients with completed study data (n = 72 liberal, n = 74 restricted). There was no difference in physical activity at 2 weeks between the liberal and the restricted instruction groups, as measured by AAS scores (70.47 ± 12.83, 69.54 ± 12.22, p = 0.66), total steps (4,582.20 ± 2,164.5, 5,014.47 ± 3,025.46, p = 0.32), active minutes (4.22 ± 6.17, 4.96 ± 9.65, p = 0.25), and 10-min intervals (0.76 ± 1.11, 0.77 ± 0.93, p = 0.95) respectively. Similarly, there was no difference in activity at 6 weeks between the liberal and the restricted instruction groups. as measured by AAS scores (81.86 ± 8.25, 81.31 ± 10.31, p = 0.72), total steps (6,316.25 ± 3,173.53, 6,589.94 ± 3,826.43, p = 0.64), active minutes (8.79 ± 10.5,11.36 ± 18.18, p = 0.98), and 10-min intervals (1.37 ± 1.34, 1.34 ± 1.40, p = 0.89) respectively. CONCLUSION: Postoperative instructions do not have an impact on physical activity measures in patients who have undergone pelvic reconstructive surgery.

A Scoping Study of Psychosocial Factors in Women Diagnosed With and/or Treated for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is prevalent and can impact women's physical and psychosocial health. To develop interventions that support this population, an understanding of the state of research on psychosocial factors related to POP is essential. We conducted a scoping study focused on the psychosocial experience of women with POP. The purpose of this review was to (1) inventory and describe the current state of knowledge of the psychosocial experience of women with POP, (2) identify gaps in knowledge, and (3) identify targets for future research. METHOD: Electronic databases PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched through November 1, 2017. RESULTS: Of 524 titles reviewed, 103 articles met all inclusion criteria. Articles were grouped by the disease period (ie, prediagnosis, diagnosis/preintervention, intervention, follow-up, and mixed) and psychosocial factors. Most articles (n = 73) focused on women undergoing intervention. Articles focusing on the preintervention period was the next largest category (n = 14). Follow-up after intervention (n = 8) and samples of mixed disease periods (n = 7) were less common. One article focused on women before diagnosis. Articles focused on quality of life (QOL; n = 79), sexual function (n = 51), satisfaction (n = 16), body image (n = 13), psychological distress (n = 4), and knowledge (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Research on the psychosocial experience of POP has largely focused on changes in QOL and sexual function. Future research should target emotional experience of women with POP; relationships among QOL, psychological distress, body image, and sexual function; and psychosocial factors related to treatment outcomes.

Predictors of Postdischarge Surgical Recovery Following Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to identify sociodemographic/clinical, surgical, and psychosocial predictors of postdischarge surgical recovery after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Study participants (N = 171) with at least stage 2 pelvic organ prolapse completed a preoperative survey measuring hypothesized sociodemographic/clinical, surgical, and psychosocial recovery predictors followed by a postoperative survey at 4 time points (days 7, 14, 42, and 90) that included the Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 scale. One multivariate linear regression model was constructed for each time point to regress Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 scores on an a priori set of hypothesized predictors. All variables that had P < 0.1 were considered significant predictors of recovery because of the exploratory nature of this study and focus on model building rather than model testing. RESULTS: Predictors of recovery at 1 or more time points included the following: sociodemographic/clinical predictors: older age, higher body mass index, fewer comorbidities, and greater preoperative pain predicted greater recovery; surgical predictors: fewer perioperative complications and greater change in the leading edge of prolapse after surgery predicted greater recovery; psychosocial predictors: less endorsement of doctor's locus of control, greater endorsement of other's locus of control, and less sick role investment predicted greater recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Identified sociodemographic/clinical, surgical, and psychosocial predictors should provide physicians with evidence-based guidance on recovery times for patients and family members. This knowledge is critical for informing future research to determine if these predictors are modifiable by changes to our narrative during the preoperative consultation visit. These efforts may reduce the postdischarge surgical recovery for patients with pelvic organ prolapse after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, accepting the unique demands on each individual's time.

Low Bladder Compliance in Women: A Clinical Overview.

Bladder compliance refers to the ability of the bladder to accommodate large volumes of urine. Patients with low bladder compliance may present with persistent urinary incontinence and/or evidence of upper tract damage. Clinicians often may not consider low bladder compliance in their differential for patients complaining of bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. In this article, we aim to provide further guidance in the management of women with low bladder compliance given the lack of information on this topic in the medical literature.

Appropriateness of referrals to a urogynecology practice.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The urogynecology subspecialty relies on appropriate referrals from their referral base. We sought to provide guidance for optimizing appropriate referrals to urogynecology by comparing pre-referral characteristics between appropriate and inappropriate referrals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined predictors of appropriate urogynecology referrals. Appropriateness categorization was based upon pelvic floor disorder (PFD) symptoms and signs provided by the referring provider. Patients with both a PFD symptom and sign were considered "appropriate." Patients with neither a PFD symptom nor sign were considered "inappropriate." PFD symptoms were: vaginal bulge, voiding or defecatory dysfunction. PFD signs were: vaginal vault prolapse, urethral hypermobility, mesh/sling exposure, elevated post-void residual, positive standing stress test, abnormal urinalysis or urine culture-proven infection. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed with ANOVA and chi-square test, respectively. A logistic regression model to predict appropriateness was developed from variables identified from the bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Bivariate predictors of an appropriate referral for 1716 study subjects were older age, prior overactive bladder medication use, MD/DO referrer source and OBGYN, urogynecology or urology referrer specialty. Our logistic regression model correctly classified referrals as appropriate in 93.6% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Age, anti-cholinergic medication use, referrer source and specialty are pre-initial visit predictors of urogynecology referral appropriateness. The predictor-generated model was successful in predicting referral appropriateness. Potential bias from information transfer issues, lack of pre-referral evaluation and referring provider unfamiliarity with urogynecology are possible reasons for inappropriate referrals and potential areas for improvement.

Analyzing the Readability of Online Urogynecologic Patient Information.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the readability of Web sites arising from the most common Google search terms related to pelvic organ prolapse, bladder control, and bowel control. METHODS: Google was queried to capture the top 100 search results for the keywords in each disease group. For the top 20 results of each keyword, we analyzed the text for readability using 4 readability formulas: Dale-Chall, Gunning-Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.Readability scores were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05), and the Tukey test was performed to characterize any significant differences. The χ tests were used to compare results above and below the eighth grade reading level. Spearman correlations were used to compare the reliability of the different readability formulas. RESULTS: We evaluated 2731 unique Web sites for readability, of which 2334 (85%) had a SMOG score at or above an eighth grade reading level. The mean SMOG score was 9.7 ± 2.1. Web sites in the bladder control keyword group had statistically higher SMOG scores than those in the bowel control and pelvic organ prolapse groups, with means of 9.9 ± 2.0, 9.4 ± 2.1, and 9.6 ± 2.0, respectively. The SMOG was found to be the most reliable. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of urogynecologic information available to patients on the Internet is written at or above an eighth grade reading level despite longstanding recommendations to the contrary. Clinicians should advise patients that the information they find online may be difficult to understand.

Posterior Compartment Surgery Provides No Differential Benefit for Defecatory Symptoms Before or After Concomitant Mesh-Augmented Apical Suspension.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the value of posterior compartment surgery during concomitant mesh-augmented apical suspension by comparing obstructed defecatory symptoms after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with LSC with posterior repair (LSC + PR) and laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy (LSCP) procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent LSC, LSC + PR, and LSCP between July 2007 and July 2016 at a tertiary referral center in Indianapolis, Ind. Our primary outcome was differential change in Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and Colorectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire (CRAIQ-7) scores between the groups including patient-specific symptoms of splinting, straining, incomplete emptying, and pain with defecation. Our secondary outcomes were the rates of postoperative persistent, new, and resolved obstructed defecation symptoms. Anatomic outcomes were also compared between the groups as measured by change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points Ap, GH, and PB. RESULTS: A total of 312 women were included in the study (47 LSC, 133 LSC + PR, and 132 LSCP), with a median follow-up time of 366 days. The majority of patients who underwent surgery had stage III pelvic organ prolapse (61%). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, including preoperative CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores. All surgical groups demonstrated improvement in CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores postoperatively (P < 0.001). However, despite differential change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points Ap, GH, and PB, there was no change in CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores or rates of persistent, new, and resolved symptoms of splinting to defecate, incomplete emptying, and pain with defecation between the groups. The only factor that seemed to be differentially improved by the addition of a posterior compartment repair was postoperative straining. There was a greater rate of de novo straining in the LSC group compared with LSCP (P = 0.01) (LSC + PR v LSCP, P = NS, for both). CONCLUSIONS: We cannot recommend posterior compartment surgery as providing any patient-centered benefit beyond improved cosmesis because the addition of perineal body stabilization either before (LSCP) or posterior repair after (LSC + PR) concomitant mesh-augmented apical suspension did not differentially affect bowel symptoms compared with LSC alone.

Polypropylene Mesh Predicts Mesh/Suture Exposure After Sacrocolpopexy Independent of Known Risk Factors: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of this study was to determine if ultralightweight polypropylene mesh reduced the risk of mesh/suture exposure after sacrocolpopexy compared with heavier-weighted polypropylene. METHODS: Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to interpret data from 133 cases and 261 control subjects to evaluate independent predictors of mesh/suture exposure after sacrocolpopexy from 2003 to 2013. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression revealed that prior surgery for incontinence (odds ratio [OR], 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-6.96), porcine acellular cross-linked collagen matrix with medium-weight polypropylene mesh (OR, 4.95; 95% CI, 1.70-14.42), other polypropylene mesh (OR, 6.73; 95% CI, 1.12-40.63), nonabsorbable braided suture for vaginal mesh attachment (OR, 4.52; 95% CI, 1.53-15.37), and immediate perioperative complications (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.53-13.37) were independent risk factors for mesh/suture exposure. After multivariate analysis, ultralightweight polypropylene mesh was no longer associated with decreased rates of mesh/suture exposure after controlling for known risk factors identified during bivariate analysis (P = 0.423). CONCLUSIONS: Both mesh choice and suture selection remained independent predictors of mesh/suture exposure, with heavier meshes increasing and monofilament suture decreasing rates of mesh/suture exposure. Based on this study, surgeons may consider use of delayed-absorbable, monofilament suture over nonabsorbable braided suture for attachment of vaginal mesh to reduce the risk of mesh/suture exposure when using mesh.

Age and Dyssynergia Subtypes Associated With Normal Sphincter Pressures in Women With Fecal Incontinence.

OBJECTIVES: Fecal incontinence (FI) is frequently associated with low sphincter pressures, sensory abnormalities, and advanced age. Twenty-three percent of patients with FI and 22% of healthy patients demonstrate dyssynergic defecation (DD) on high-resolution anorectal manometry. Overflow incontinence occurs in some DD patients with normal resting and squeeze anal sphincter pressures. Our aim was to identify factors associated with normal sphincter pressures in women with FI. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of 134 women with FI. Patients with normal resting and squeeze anal pressures were compared with those with abnormal pressures using Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher exact. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with normal resting and squeeze anal pressures. RESULTS: Among 134 women, abnormal resting and/or squeeze pressures were identified in 113 and normal pressures were identified in 21. Women with normal sphincter pressures were younger (mean age 52.7 ± 10.8 years vs 59.0 ± 14.0 years, P = 0.036), more often had abnormal defecation indices (100% vs 83.2%, P = 0.043) and higher rectal defecation pressures (30.8 ± 18.8 mm Hg vs 50.8 ± 22.6 mm Hg, P < 0.001). There was an overall association between DD subtype and normal and abnormal sphincter pressure groups (P = 0.021). Dyssynergia subtypes I or III (odds ratio, 7.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-28.8) and age younger than 67 years (odds ratio, 8.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-48.6) were associated with greater odds of having normal sphincter pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Female FI patients with normal anal sphincter pressures are younger, have higher rectal defecation pressures, and more often have type I or type III DD.

Increasing Anteroposterior Genital Hiatus Widening Does Not Limit Apical Descent for Prolapse Staging During Valsalva's Maneuver: Effect on Symptom Severity and Surgical Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if anteroposterior genital hiatus (GH) widening obscures rather than facilitates signs and symptoms, inadvertently altering management decisions for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) during Valsalva's Maneuver, at a given total vaginal length (TVL). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort with nested cross-sectional study of patients who underwent POP surgery. Data from obstetric and gynecologic history, preoperative and postoperative physical examinations, and 20-item Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and 7-item Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) scores were extracted. Study participants were compared in 2 groups: anteroposterior widened (>3 cm) and not widened (≤3 cm) GH, for baseline leading edge and POP stage, while controlling for TVL. Baseline PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores were evaluated within GH groups. Delta GH, PFDI-20, and PFIQ-7 scores after apical suspension with and without posterior colporrhaphy were compared to assess the clinical value of the procedure. RESULTS: Study participants with anteroposterior GH widening during Valsalva maneuver had greater baseline leading edge descent and higher POP stage compared with those without anteroposterior GH widening after controlling for TVL. Baseline PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores were similar within both GH categories controlling for prolapse severity. Adding posterior colporrhaphy to apical suspension resulted in a greater anteroposterior GH reduction without improving delta PFDI-20 or PFIQ-7 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation through herniation rather than obscuration from anteroposterior GH widening explains why patients will not be undertreated based on signs and symptoms of disease. Adding posterior colporrhaphy to apical suspension more effectively reduces anteroposterior GH widening without differential improvement in symptoms rendering the operation to no more than a cosmetic procedure.

Validating the Postdischarge Surgical Recovery Scale 13 as a Measure of Perceived Postoperative Recovery After Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy.

OBJECTIVES: No postoperative recovery measurement tools have been validated among women undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse, which impedes development and testing of strategies to improve recovery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Postdischarge Surgical Recovery Scale (PSR) as a measure of perceived recovery in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy patients. METHODS: Women (N = 120) with stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy completed a 15-minute postoperative survey (days 7, 14, 42, and 90 [each ± 3 days]) which included the 15-item PSR. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using data from 14 days postsurgery, when patients would have begun to recover, but there was likely to be substantial variability in recovery across patients. We also assessed validity and explored sensitivity to change over time and minimally important difference values. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fitting model for a reduced version of the PSR (ie, PSR13). Regressions showed that the PSR13 prospectively predicted single-item recovery scores. The PSR13 recovery significantly improved from days 7 to 42, suggesting the PSR13 is sensitive to change. Descriptive statistics including minimally important differences are reported. The minimally important difference was estimated to be around 5 points. CONCLUSIONS: The PSR13 is a psychometrically sound tool for measuring recovery over time in this population. Its short length makes it an ideal postoperative recovery measure in clinical practice or research.

If you could see what we see, would it bother you?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether the anatomic threshold for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) diagnosis and surgical success remains valid when the patient sees what we see on exam. METHODS: Two hundred participants were assigned, by computer-generated block randomization, to see one of four videos. Each video contained the same six clips representative of various degrees of anterior vaginal wall support. Participants were asked questions immediately after each clip. They were asked: "In your opinion, does this patient have a bulge or something falling out that she can see or feel in the vaginal area?" Similarly, they were asked to give their opinion on surgical outcome on a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The proportion of participants who identified the presence of a vaginal bulge increased substantially at the level of early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 67 % answering yes to the question regarding bulge. The proportion of participants who felt that surgical outcome was less desirable also increased substantially at early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 52 % describing that outcome as "not at all" or "somewhat" successful. CONCLUSION: Early stage 2 POP (1 cm above the hymen) is the anatomic threshold at which women identify both a vaginal bulge and a less desirable surgical outcome when they see what we see on examination.