Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void With Valsalva.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after retropubic sling (RPS) in women with and without Valsalva voiding. METHODS: Women who underwent RPS for stress incontinence from 2010 to 2014 were identified and their baseline characteristics were examined. Valsalva voiding was defined as abdominal straining throughout voiding on preoperative urodynamics. Sub-analysis of those with Valsalva included a subset with detrusor underactivity on urodynamics. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were rates of subjective success, revisions, complications, and voiding dysfunction. Secondary measures were Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) score, post-void residual, and pad use. RESULTS: Subjects (n = 141) analyzed included 75 Valsalva voiders (VV) and 66 non-Valsalva voiders. At baseline, there were no differences in age, race, comorbidity, post-void residual, pad use, UDI-6, or capacity. Postoperatively, there were no differences in rates of passing initial void trial, need for clean intermittent catheterization, revisions, complications, or voiding dysfunction. No differences in pad use, UDI-6, or IIQ-7 were seen at 6 or 12 months. Within VV, no differences between patients with and without detrusor underactivity were seen for any primary or secondary outcomes (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: In patients who void with Valsalva, RPS appears to be safe and effective. Between VV and non-Valsalva voiders, there were no differences in rates of subjective success, revisions, or complications, even in patients with Valsalva voiding without appreciable detrusor contraction.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for benign ovarian cystectomies.

BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopy (LESS) utilizes a single, multichannel port in an attempt to decrease postoperative pain, while enhancing cosmesis and minimizing the potential risks and morbidities associated with the multiple ports used in conventional laparoscopy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study examining three tertiary care referral centers. From September 2009 until March 2013, 31 patients with ovarian cystic lesions were treated using the LESS technique. A control group of 57 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy was included for comparison. RESULTS: All patients underwent a technically successful cystectomy. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean operative time or estimated blood loss between the two groups. Narcotic use during the recovery period was reported in less patients in the LESS group than in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The LESS technique can be used to safely perform cystectomies on women with benign ovarian cysts. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the safety, cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes of this new approach.