Faculty Bibliography

Although the male sling is a popular and effective option to treat stress urinary incontinence, the reported success rates are highly variable. Detailed knowledge of the factors affecting male sling outcome can improve clinical efficacy and provide realistic expectations for patients. The objective of this article is to review the current literature that identifies factors associated with surgical outcome, with the goal of optimizing pre-operative selection criteria. Since most practitioners prefer the transobturator approach, the retrourethral transobturator sling (i.e., AdVanceâ„¢ sling) is the focus of this review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of office-based ultrasound (US) to identify the fluid status of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) pressure-regulating balloon (PRB). METHODS: Patients who underwent AUS revision surgery (removal/replacement) from January 4, 2007, to January 4, 2010, were identified. US were done preoperatively to assess the system fluid status. Intraoperative findings were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated comparing US results with intra-/postoperative findings. When the PRB was underfilled, the location of the device fluid leak was determined, and the device was removed/replaced. In cases of a full PRB, patients had a cuff downsizing or total removal/replacement. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were identified. Reasons for not obtaining US included: advanced device age (4), cuff erosion (2), volume determination by other modality (2), cuff site pain (1), isolated pump malfunctions (1), and other (3). Fourteen patients underwent an US before the removal/replacement. By US, PRB was full (21-23 mL) in 43% of the patients and empty/underfilled (0-6 mL) in 57%. US was 100% sensitive and specific determining fluid status. When PRB was full, management consisted of cuff downsizing (3), transcorporal cuff placement (1), and total removal/replacement (2). In all cases of device leak, an entire removal/replacement was performed. The cuff was identified as the site of leak in 50% of cases. CONCLUSION: US is an effective and accurate way of determining the fluid status of the AMS 800 AUS. Given the accuracy of this modality, the system can be filled with saline solution without losing the ability to determine fluid status.

Abstract Background and Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe the surgical technique and report the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy, a uterine sparing procedure to correct pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Hysterectomy at the time of POP surgery has yet to be proven to improve the durability of repair. Nevertheless, the leading indication for hysterectomy in postmenopausal women is POP. Patients and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of a consecutive case series of uterine sparing prolapse repair procedures from 2005 to 2011. Fifteen women were identified. Procedures utilized a type I polypropylene mesh securing the posterior uterocervical junction to the sacral promontory. This was later modified to utilize a Y-shaped strip that was inserted through the broad ligaments to include the anterior uterocervical junction. Results: Objective success was defined as Baden Walker grade 0 uterine prolapse and subjective success was defined as no complaint of vaginal bulge or pressure. The mean age of women was 51.8 years (28-64 years). No intraoperative complications were noted. The mean operating time was 159.4 minutes (130-201 minutes) and mean estimated blood loss was 35 mL (0-100 mL). The mean length of stay was 1.6 days (1-4 days) and mean length of follow-up was 10.8 months. Uterine prolapse improved in all 15 patients. Objective success was 93% (14/15) and subjective success was 80% (12/15). Conclusion: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was found to be a safe and feasible surgical treatment option for POP patients who desire uterine preservation.

PURPOSE: We determined the usefulness of urodynamics in patients with obstruction secondary to anti-incontinence surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all procedures performed from January 2001 to June 2011 to relieve obstruction due to anti-incontinence surgery. Patients were excluded from study if they underwent prior procedures to relieve obstruction, followup data were missing or a neurological disorder was present. Patients were grouped into categories before intervention, including urodynamics diagnostic of obstruction vs nondiagnostic urodynamics vs no urodynamics testing. We also separated patients with predominantly storage symptoms and those with incomplete emptying. RESULTS: A total of 71 women were included in analysis. Of 54 women who presented with increased post-void residual urine volume 33 (61%) were diagnosed with obstruction on urodynamics, urodynamics was not diagnostic in 4 (7.4%) and 17 (32%) did not undergo urodynamics preoperatively. All 18 patients with predominantly storage symptoms underwent urodynamics. In patients with incomplete emptying there was no difference between the groups in storage or voiding symptom improvement, overall cure or success according to whether diagnostic urodynamics were or were not done. Of patients with storage symptoms who underwent urodynamics those without evidence of detrusor overactivity had significantly greater storage symptom improvement than those with detrusor overactivity (85.7% vs 53.8%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: When voiding symptoms or urinary retention is the primary indication for intervention after anti-incontinence surgery, urodynamic findings are not predictive of outcomes after intervention to relieve obstruction. If storage symptoms are the main indication for intervention, urodynamics may be valuable for patient counseling.

OBJECTIVES: To define the urodynamic study findings among women with insensible urinary incontinence. METHODS: Women complaining of insensible incontinence who underwent urodynamics at our center were identified. Coexisting symptoms of stress incontinence, urgency incontinence and/or mixed incontinence were recorded. The primary outcome was the urodynamic study finding. Urodynamic stress incontinence, detrusor overactivity incontinence, combination of both or neither (no incontinence) were the possible diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 58% of patients had insensible incontinence alone and 42% had insensible incontinence combined with other urinary incontinence symptoms. Of the patients with insensible incontinence alone, 37% had no incontinence on urodynamics, whereas urodynamic stress incontinence was diagnosed in 52%. Isolated urodynamic stress incontinence was found in 73% of patients with insensible and stress incontinence symptoms. In patients with insensible plus urgency incontinence, isolated detrusor overactivity incontinence and detrusor overactivity incontinence with urodynamic stress incontinence were found in the same percentage of women (40% each). In patients with symptoms including stress urinary incontinence, stress incontinence was the predominant urodynamic finding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have incontinence symptoms in addition to insensible incontinence, these symptoms are highly predictive of urodynamic findings. In particular, women with insensible incontinence, concomitant stress incontinence symptoms are most predictive of urodynamic findings (i.e. urodynamic stress urinary incontinence). In contrast, where insensible incontinence represents the only symptom, urodynamic findings vary widely, with a significant proportion having non-diagnostic studies.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the symptoms and urodynamic findings of anatomical bladder outlet obstruction (AO) and functional bladder outlet obstruction (FO) in women and to determine if future endeavors at defining bladder outlet obstruction in women can group these entities together. METHODS: Retrospective review of all videourodynamic studies was performed on women from March 2003 to July 2009. Women with diagnosis of obstruction were categorized based on the cause of obstruction into 2 groups: AO and FO. Demographic data, symptoms, and urodynamic findings were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven women were identified of which 86 (54.8%) were classified as having AO and 71 (45.2%) were classified as having FO. There were no differences in symptoms between the 2 groups. There was no difference (P=0.5789) in the mean detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate Qmax between AO (38.9 cm H20) and FO (41.0 cm H20). There was a difference in the Qmax between AO and FO (10.6 [0-41.7] and 7.4 [0-35.7] mL/s, respectively; P=0.0044), but there was considerable overlap between the values in these 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical bladder outlet obstruction and FO have similar urodynamic voiding pressure findings, but Qmax was statistically significantly lower in AO. However, there is a large overlap in the Qmax values between the 2 groups. Therefore, future studies that attempt to characterize bladder outlet obstruction in women need not exclude either group.