Does sex matter? A matched pairs analysis of neuromodulation outcomes in women and men.

AIMS: To evaluate whether baseline symptoms and outcomes are influenced by gender in a matched cohort undergoing neuromodulation. METHODS: Patients in our prospective neuromodulation database that had a tined lead placed were reviewed. Those that had implantable pulse generator (IPG) placed were matched on age and urologic diagnosis. History, voiding diaries, satisfaction, Interstitial Cystitis Symptom/Problem Index (ICSIPI), and overactive bladder symptom severity (OABq ss)/health-related quality of life (HRQOL) preimplant and over 3 years were evaluated using descriptive statistics, repeated measures, and matched pair GEE or mixed analyses. RESULTS: Of 590 patients in the database, more women than men received an IPG (450/488; 92.2 vs. 84/102; 82.4%; p = 0.0011). Eighty matched pairs (n = 160; 81% ≥ 50 years old; 56.25% had urgency/frequency with urge incontinence-UI) were identified and evaluated. On voiding diaries, volume/void was greater in women only at baseline (p = 0.040); both groups improved over time (p < 0.0001). Urinary frequency improved in both women and men (p = 0.0010; p = 0.0025). Over 3 years, UI episodes/day improved only in men (p = 0.017) and UI severity improved only in women (p < 0.0001). ICSIPI, OABq ss, and HRQOL scores improved similarly in both groups (p < 0.0001 for all measures in both groups), and although more women were satisfied at 3 months (p = 0.027), groups did not differ at other time points. CONCLUSIONS: More women undergo neuromodulation and have initial success and subsequent IPG implantation. UI episodes improved only in men, and UI severity improved only in women. Both women and men experienced similar levels of symptom improvement on other measures.

Radiographic Misdiagnoses After Periurethral Bulking Agents.

OBJECTIVES: Injectable urethral bulking agents are commonly used to manage stress urinary incontinence. Urologic or other symptoms may prompt pelvic imaging at a later date, when bulking agents may be visualized and incorrectly interpreted. Our goal was to evaluate the incidence of misdiagnosis and which pathologies were the most common misinterpretations and their frequency. METHODS: All records were reviewed for patients who underwent periurethral injection for stress urinary incontinence for pelvic imaging after treatment from 2005 to 2015. Radiological reports were reviewed for any description potentially related to injection therapy, and descriptive statistics performed. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients underwent injection of a urethral bulking agent. Of these, 79 patients (15%) had a total of 111 additional abdominal or pelvic imaging studies performed with abnormal periurethral findings mentioned. Thirty-nine (35%) of 111 studies were correctly interpreted as urethral bulking agents, and in 72 (65%) of 111 studies, the urethral bulking agents were not correctly identified. The most common misdiagnoses were bladder calcification (26; 23%), urethral diverticulum with stone (12; 11%), periurethral calcification (9; 8%), unknown pelvic density (8; 7%), and mass suspicious for malignancy (6; 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Urethral bulking agents commonly were not mentioned on subsequent imaging but, when commented on, were misinterpreted 65% of the time including worrisome pathologies (diverticulum with stone, unknown mass, and malignancy), requiring subsequent evaluation and potentially procedural/surgical management. It is critical for the ordering clinician to inform the radiologist of this history and for radiologists to consider bulking agents in the differential diagnosis of radiographic findings in this location.