Pudendal Block at the Time of Transvaginal Prolapse Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The utility of pudendal nerve blocks (PNBs) at the time of transvaginal surgery is mixed in the literature. No published study has evaluated the efficacy of PNB since the widespread adoption of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if PNB, in addition to ERAS measures, at the time of vaginal reconstructive surgery reduces opioid use in the immediate postoperative period. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized, blinded, controlled trial, women scheduled for transvaginal multicompartment prolapse repair were randomized to bilateral PNB before incision with 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine versus usual care. Primary outcome was opioid use in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for the first 24 hours. The study was powered to detect a 5.57-MME difference in opioid use in the first 24 hours between groups. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were randomized from January 2020 to April 2022. The PNB and control groups were well matched in demographic and surgical data. There was no difference in opioid use in first 24 hours between the control and PNB groups (8 [0-20] vs 6.7 [0-15]; P = 0.8). Median pain scores at 24 and 48 hours did not differ between groups (4 ± 2 vs 3 ± 3; P = 0.44) and 90% of participants were satisfied with pain control across both groups. Time to return to normal activities (median, 10 days) was also not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Because pain satisfaction after transvaginal surgery in the era of ERAS is high, with overall low opioid requirements, PNB provides no additional benefit.

Evaluating patients' symptoms of overactive bladder by questionnaire: the role of urgency in urinary frequency.

OBJECTIVE: To explain what role urinary urgency has on urinary frequency in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 102 patients with OAB over a 6-week period. Patients were assessed with the OAB-q and a pilot questionnaire to identify which urinary symptoms were most bothersome and what underlying cause subjects attributed urinary frequency to. Associations between epidemiologic characteristics, OAB-q scores, and subject responses to the pilot questionnaire, were examined for statistical significance with the Pearson chi square test. RESULTS: The study population comprised 85% women and 15% men, with mean age 67.4 years and mean OAB-q score 54. Subjects reported their most bothersome symptom was: frequency 24.5%, urgency or urgency incontinence 48.0%, nocturia 27.5%. Of the patients most bothered by frequency, 64% identified the International Continence Society definition of urgency or "fear of leakage" as the underlying reason for their frequency. Overall, 82.4% and 48.0% of patients reported urgency or urgency incontinence as a symptom and most bothersome symptom respectively. However, when patients were specifically asked what drives their urinary frequency, these percentages increased to 89.2% and 63.7%. CONCLUSION: This pilot study confirms that urgency is a large factor underlying the drive to void frequently in OAB, even when patients do not admit to urgency as the most bothersome symptom.

Urodynamic findings in women with insensible incontinence.

OBJECTIVES: To define the urodynamic study findings among women with insensible urinary incontinence. METHODS: Women complaining of insensible incontinence who underwent urodynamics at our center were identified. Coexisting symptoms of stress incontinence, urgency incontinence and/or mixed incontinence were recorded. The primary outcome was the urodynamic study finding. Urodynamic stress incontinence, detrusor overactivity incontinence, combination of both or neither (no incontinence) were the possible diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 58% of patients had insensible incontinence alone and 42% had insensible incontinence combined with other urinary incontinence symptoms. Of the patients with insensible incontinence alone, 37% had no incontinence on urodynamics, whereas urodynamic stress incontinence was diagnosed in 52%. Isolated urodynamic stress incontinence was found in 73% of patients with insensible and stress incontinence symptoms. In patients with insensible plus urgency incontinence, isolated detrusor overactivity incontinence and detrusor overactivity incontinence with urodynamic stress incontinence were found in the same percentage of women (40% each). In patients with symptoms including stress urinary incontinence, stress incontinence was the predominant urodynamic finding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have incontinence symptoms in addition to insensible incontinence, these symptoms are highly predictive of urodynamic findings. In particular, women with insensible incontinence, concomitant stress incontinence symptoms are most predictive of urodynamic findings (i.e. urodynamic stress urinary incontinence). In contrast, where insensible incontinence represents the only symptom, urodynamic findings vary widely, with a significant proportion having non-diagnostic studies.