Predictive urodynamic factors for de novo stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is often performed to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Preoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can improve after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. In contrast, some patients without incontinence preoperatively develop SUI after pelvic organ prolapse repair (ie, de novo SUI). This study aimed to identify the preoperative predictive factors of de novo SUI after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: A total of 858 patients underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy between January 2013 and November 2017 at Kameda Medical Center. Urodynamic studies were performed pre- and postoperatively on 75 patients. This retrospective study included 43 of 75 patients who did not have SUI preoperatively. We assessed urethral function according to functional profile length and maximum urethral closure pressure. We evaluated voiding function in terms of maximum flow rate, detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual volume. Furthermore, each factor was compared between de novo SUI-positive and SUI-negative groups. RESULTS: After laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, 30 (69.8%) patients presented with SUI. The preoperative maximum urethral closure pressure was significantly lower in the de novo SUI-positive group (36.0 cmH2 O) than in the de novo SUI-negative group (50.5 cmH2 O, P = .020). More patients with maximum urethral closure pressure <40 cmH2 O had de novo SUI than patients with maximum urethral closure pressure ≥40 cmH2 O (P = .004). There were no significant differences between preoperative maximum urethral closure pressure and postoperative maximum urethral closure pressure in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Low preoperative maximum urethral closure pressure, particularly maximum urethral closure pressure <40 cmH2 O, is a predictor of de novo SUI after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Lower urinary tract function improves after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for elderly patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is relatively common in the elderly population. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has been reported by several studies to be a less invasive treatment option as compared to open sacrocolpopexy. However, almost all prior reports focused on the complications or surgical obstacles. The present study was designed to examine POP patients of all ages and assess lower urinary tract function before and after LSC. METHODS: This retrospective study examined the results of LSC performed in POP patients. Urodynamic studies were performed pre- and postoperatively in 50 patients, with the subjects divided into two groups containing those less than and those older than 65 years of age. We performed a pressure flow study. We examined bladder functions by evaluating bladder capacity, detrusor pressure at maximum flow (PdetQmax), maximum flow rate (Qmax), normal desire to void, strong desire to void, voided volume, and postvoid residual volume (PVR). Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Values of P < .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: With regard to the pressure-flow study parameters, there was a significant increase in the normal desire to void and bladder capacity only in the ≥65 age group. After the operation, there was a significant increase in the mean postoperative Qmax and voided volume, while there was a significant decrease in the PdetQmax and PVR as compared to the preoperative values only in the ≥65 age group. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that in elderly patients with POP, LSC might be a valid option with regard to potentially regaining urinary tract function.

Laparoscopic lateral suspension for pelvic organ prolapse in a case with difficulty in performing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

INTRODUCTION: Mesh fixation at the promontory is the most important procedure in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. We present a case of pelvic organ prolapse wherein sacrocolpopexy was converted to lateral suspension intraoperatively due to tissue weakness of the promontory. CASE PRESENTATION: A 66-year-old woman with a sensation of bulge in the vagina presented to our clinic. She was diagnosed with uterine prolapse (grade III). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was planned; exposure of the promontory and mesh fixation at the vesicovaginal and rectovaginal space could be smoothly performed. However, handling the needle at the promontory was impossible due to tissue weakness of the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum. Consequently, mesh fixation was converted to lateral suspension. CONCLUSION: Difficult mesh fixation at the promontory is not rare in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Lateral suspension may be useful as a trouble-shooting procedure for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and surgeons performing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy should know this procedure.

Clinical and urodynamic assessment in patients with pelvic organ prolapse before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that patient-reported urinary symptoms and urodynamic evaluation improve after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) despite deeper vesicovaginal space dissection. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent LSC from January 2013 to January 2016 in a tertiary center. Urinary function was clinically evaluated using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (ICIQ-SF), the Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire- - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20). Urodynamic assessment was performed before and 6 months after surgery. The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test and the McNemar test were applied with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included in the study. Of these, 46 had urodynamic assessment before and after LSC. There were significant improvements after LSC in urodynamic storage phase parameters (higher volume at first desire, higher volume at strong desire, and larger bladder capacity) and voiding phase parameters (higher Q max, higher Q ave, lower P det Q max, increased voided volume and reduced postvoid residual urine volume). Clinically, there was a significant increase after LSC in stress urinary incontinence and a significant reduction in urgency urinary incontinence, overactive bladder and voiding dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from increased stress urinary incontinence, there was an improvement in overall urinary function in terms of patient-reported symptoms and urodynamics, despite deep vesicovaginal space dissection. Hence, LSC is a viable surgical option for pelvic organ prolapse, restoring both level 1 and level 2 support without detrimental effects on urinary function.