RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a prevalent problem within the female population with associated high psycho-social impact. Transobturator tape procedure is a well-established procedure to treat the same, but the results may be influenced by various preoperative demographic and clinical factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study group comprised of 50 female patients with genuine SUI, who were then divided into subgroups based on demographic and clinical factors. Outcomes were compared between these subgroups at 6 and 12 months using self-reported questionnaires and provocative stress test. RESULTS: Our results show positive correlation with statistically significant better surgical outcomes in premenopausal patients, patients aged <50 years and those having urethral mobility > 30 degrees. Statistically significant poor outcomes were seen in those having undergone hysterectomy or Caesarean section. No correlation was found with history of smoking or the patient's body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the transobturator tape procedure appears to be more effective in premenopausal women, women aged < 50 years, women without history of hysterectomy/lower section Caesarean section, and presence of urethral hypermobility > 30 degrees. On the other hand, outcomes do not appear to be influenced by the patient's body mass index or smoking status.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Urodynamic studies are commonly performed as part of the preoperative work-up of patients undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We aimed to assess the extent to which these urodynamic parameters influence patient selection and postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients presenting with SUI were randomly assigned to two groups: one undergoing office evaluation only and the other with a preoperative urodynamic work-up. Patients with unfavorable urodynamic parameters (detrusor overactivity [DO] and/or Valsalva leak point pressure [VLPP]<60 cm H2O and/or maximum urethral closure pressure [MUCP]<20 cm H2O) were excluded from the urodynamic testing group. All patients in both groups underwent the transobturator midurethral sling procedure. Evaluation for treatment success (reductions in urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire scoring along with absent positive stress test) was done at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were evaluated. After 12 patients with any one or more of the abnormal urodynamic parameters were excluded, 30 patients were finally recruited in each of the "urodynamic testing" and "office evaluation only" groups. At both the 6- and the 12-month follow-ups, treatment outcomes (reduction in scores and positive provocative stress test) were significantly better in the urodynamic testing group than in the office evaluation only group (p-values significant for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed statistically significantly better treatment outcomes in the urodynamic group (after excluding those with poor prognostic indicators such as DO, low VLPP, and MUCP) than in the office evaluation only group. We recommend exploiting the prognostic value of these urodynamic parameters for patient counseling and treatment decisions.
