Prevalence of Sexual Function and Vibrator Use Among Urogynecology Patients.

IMPORTANCE: Urogynecology patients often present with sexual dysfunction; limited information on vibrator utilization to improve sexual function in this population exists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess patient knowledge of and receptivity to vibrator use. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional, survey-based cohort study. The survey included patient characteristics, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire Short Form 12, and vibrator use questions. Our primary outcome was vibrator utilization rates comparing younger (<65) and older (≥65 years) urogynecology patients. RESULTS: Of 213 distributed, 165 (78%) surveys were analyzed. Of these, 104 participants (63%) were aged <65 years and 61 (37%) were ≥65 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (all P's > 0.05). Older patients reported less vibrator utilization than younger patients (30% vs 64%, P ≤ 0.001) and were less likely to be sexually active with a partner (36% vs 62%, P = 0.002) or masturbate (23% vs 51%, P ≤ 0.001). Most patients (76%) thought physicians should discuss vibrators with patients who would like to improve their sexual function with no differences between age groups (71% vs 80%, P = 0.17). Among women receptive to vibrator use, in a multivariable analysis, patients who reported masturbation (odds ratio [OR], 13.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.80-67.71), vibrator use in the past (OR, 24.4; 95% CI, 6.65-89.53), or who believed physicians should discuss vibrators in a clinical setting (OR, 11.66; 95% CI, 2.9-46.81) were more receptive to vibrator use to improve sexual function. Age did not influence receptivity. CONCLUSIONS: Vibrator utilization is greater among younger than older patients. Most urogynecologic patients think health care providers should discuss vibrator use with patients who wish to improve sexual function.

Mesh Excision: Is Total Mesh Excision Necessary?

Nearly 29% of women will undergo a secondary, repeat operation for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptom recurrence following a primary repair, as reported by Abbott et al. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:163.e1-163.e1, 2014). In efforts to decrease the rates of failure, graft materials have been utilized to augment transvaginal repairs. Following the success of using polypropylene mesh (PPM) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the use of PPM in the transvaginal repair of POP increased. However, in recent years, significant concerns have been raised about the safety of PPM mesh. Complications, some specific to mesh, such as exposures, erosion, dyspareunia, and pelvic pain, have been reported with increased frequency. In the current literature, there is not substantive evidence to suggest that PPM has intrinsic properties that warrant total mesh removal in the absence of complications. There are a number of complications that can occur after transvaginal mesh placement that do warrant surgical intervention after failure of conservative therapy. In aggregate, there are no high-quality controlled studies that clearly demonstrate that total mesh removal is consistently more likely to achieve pain reduction. In the cases of obstruction and erosion, it seems clear that definitive removal of the offending mesh is associated with resolution of symptoms in the majority of cases and reasonable practice. There are a number of complications that can occur with removal of mesh, and patients should be informed of this as they formulate a choice of treatment. We will review these considerations as we examine the clinical question of whether total versus partial removal of mesh is necessary for the resolution of complications following transvaginal mesh placement.

Overactive bladder in the vulnerable elderly.

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common problem that may occur in individuals of all ages. It has a considerable impact on patient quality of life, and although moderately effective management strategies do exist, this condition often remains undiagnosed and untreated. OAB needs to be viewed as a symptom complex. Its presentation and management are complicated in the vulnerable elderly by the presence of baseline frailty and multiple coexisting chronic conditions. Furthermore, and beyond a simple understanding of symptomatology, providers must address patient goals and motivations as well as the expectations of caretakers. These multiple levels of perception, function, expectations, and treatment efficacy/risks must be tailored to the individual patient. While the vulnerable elderly patient may often have evidence of urinary tract dysfunction, OAB and urge urinary incontinence in this population must be understood as a multifactorial geriatric syndrome and viewed in the context of medical and functional baseline and precipitating risk factors. Expectations and goals must be tailored to the resources of vulnerable elderly patients and their caregivers, and care must be coordinated with other medical care providers. The management of OAB in the vulnerable elderly often poses significant management challenges. Nonetheless, with a thoughtful approach and an aim towards future research specifically for this population, significant reductions in morbidity and mortality long with enhancement in health-related quality of life are possible.

Pseudoreflux and detrusor overactivity due to accidental ureteral catheterization during cytometry in a pediatric patient.

We present the case of a 9-year-old girl with a neurogenic bladder who had accidental ureteral cannulation with the vesical catheter during cytometry. This is the first reported pediatric case described of this complication, the four prior cases all being in adults. The signs and symptoms of ureteral catheterization differed significantly in this patient from the adult cases. In our patient, malpositioning of the vesical catheter yielded a misleading pressure profile of primarily rhythmic pressure increases suggestive of severe detrusor overactivity and vesicoureteral reflux on fluoroscopy. The reading, however, actually reflected ureteric filling and peristalsis, and these findings resolved when the catheter was properly repositioned. This case highlights the possibility of inadvertent ureteral catheterization, and that, while rare, this complication should be kept in mind when new or unexpected DO or VUR is observed upon filling cystometry.