Vivian W. Sung

Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050

OBJECTIVE We sought to estimate the number of women who will undergo inpatient and outpatient surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in the United States from 2010 through 2050. STUDY DESIGN Using the 2007 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the 2006 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery, we calculated the rates for inpatient and outpatient SUI and POP surgery. We applied the surgery rates to the US Census Bureau population projections from 2010 through 2050. RESULTS The total number of women who will undergo SUI surgery will increase 47.2% from 210,700 in 2010 to 310,050 in 2050. Similarly, the total number of women who will have surgery for prolapse will increase from 166,000 in 2010 to 245,970 in 2050. CONCLUSION If the surgery rates for pelvic floor disorders remain unchanged, the number of surgeries for urinary incontinence and POP will increase substantially over the next 40 years.

Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the anatomic and symptomatic efficacy of graft use in transvaginal prolapse repair and to estimate the rates and describe the spectrum of adverse events associated with graft use. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies, published between 1950 and November 27, 2007, were retrieved through Medline and bibliography searches. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: To assess anatomic and symptomatic efficacy of graft use, we used transvaginal prolapse repair studies that compared graft use with either native tissue repair or repair with a different graft. To estimate rates of adverse events from graft use, all comparative studies and case series with at least 30 participants were included. For spectrum of adverse events, all study designs were included. TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Eligible studies were extracted onto standardized forms by one reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer. Comparative studies were classified by vaginal compartment (anterior, posterior, apical, or multiple), graft type (biologic, synthetic-absorbable, synthetic nonabsorbable) and outcome (anatomic, symptomatic). We found 16 comparative studies, including six randomized trials, 37 noncomparative studies with at least 30 women, 11 case series with fewer than 30 women, and 10 case reports of adverse events. One randomized trial and one prospective comparative study evaluating synthetic, nonabsorbable graft use in the anterior compartment reported favorable anatomic and symptomatic outcomes with graft use. Data regarding graft use for posterior and apical compartments or for biologic or synthetic absorbable graft use in the anterior compartment were insufficient to determine efficacy. Rates and spectrum of adverse events associated with graft use included bleeding (0–3%), visceral injury (1–4%), urinary infection (0–19%), graft erosion (0–30%), and fistula (1%). There were insufficient data regarding dyspareunia, sexual, voiding, or defecatory dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Overall, the existing evidence is limited to guide decisions regarding whether to use graft materials in transvaginal prolapse surgery. Adequately powered randomized trials evaluating anatomic and symptomatic efficacy as well as adverse events are needed.

Sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE Understanding the long-term comparative effectiveness of competing surgical repairs is essential as failures after primary interventions for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may result in a third of women requiring repeat surgery. STUDY DESIGN We conducted a systematic review including English-language randomized controlled trials from 1990 through April 2013 with a minimum 12 months of follow-up comparing a sling procedure for SUI to another sling or Burch urethropexy. When at least 3 randomized controlled trials compared the same surgeries for the same outcome, we performed random effects model metaanalyses to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS For midurethral slings (MUS) vs Burch, metaanalysis of objective cure showed no significant difference (OR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.89). Therefore, we suggest either intervention; the decision should balance potential adverse events (AEs) and concomitant surgeries. For women considering pubovaginal sling vs Burch, the evidence favored slings for both subjective and objective cure. We recommend pubovaginal sling to maximize cure outcomes. For pubovaginal slings vs MUS, metaanalysis of subjective cure favored MUS (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85). Therefore, we recommend MUS. For obturator slings vs retropubic MUS, metaanalyses for both objective (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45) and subjective cure (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.51) favored retropubic slings but were not significant. Metaanalysis of satisfaction outcomes favored obturator slings but was not significant (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.13). AEs were variable between slings; metaanalysis showed overactive bladder symptoms were more common following retropubic slings (OR, 1.413; 95% CI, 1.01-1.98, P = .046). We recommend either retropubic or obturator slings for cure outcomes; the decision should balance AEs. For minislings vs full-length MUS, metaanalyses of objective (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 2.15-8.05) and subjective (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.36-5.17) cure both significantly favored full-length slings. Therefore, we recommend a full-length MUS. CONCLUSION Surgical procedures for SUI differ for success rates and complications, and both should be incorporated into surgical decision-making. Low- to high-quality evidence permitted mostly level-1 recommendations when guidelines were possible.

Vaginal cuff dehiscence: risk factors and management.

Vaginal cuff dehiscence and evisceration are rare but serious complications of pelvic surgery, specifically hysterectomy. The data on risks of vaginal cuff dehiscence are variable, and there is no consensus on how to manage this complication. In our review, we present a summary of the risk factors, with symptoms, precipitating events, and treatment options for patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after pelvic surgery. In addition, we provide a review of the current literature on this important surgical outcome and suggestions for future research on the incidence and prevention of vaginal cuff dehiscence.

Epidemiology of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

The epidemiology of female pelvic floor disorders, including urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, anal incontinence, and interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome is reviewed. The natural history, prevalence, incidence, remission, risk factors, and potential areas for prevention are considered.

Systematic Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Robotic Techniques Compared With Laparoscopy and Laparotomy

The Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group performed a systematic review of both randomized and observational studies to compare robotic vs nonrobotic surgical approaches (laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal) for treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications to compare surgical and patient-centered outcomes, costs, and adverse events associated with the various surgical approaches. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 15, 2012, for English-language studies with terms related to robotic surgery and gynecology. Studies of any design that included at least 30 women who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included for review. The literature yielded 1213 citations, of which 97 full-text articles were reviewed. Forty-four studies (30 comparative and 14 noncomparative) met eligibility criteria. Study data were extracted into structured electronic forms and reconciled by a second, independent reviewer. Our analysis revealed that, compared with open surgery, robotic surgery consistently confers shorter hospital stay. The proficiency plateau seems to be lower for robotic surgery than for conventional laparoscopy. Of the various gynecologic applications, there seems to be evidence that renders robotic techniques advantageous over traditional open surgery for management of endometrial cancer. However, insofar as superiority, conflicting data are obtained when comparing robotics vs laparoscopic techniques. Therefore, the specific method of minimally invasive surgery, whether conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery, should be tailored to patient selection, surgeon ability, and equipment availability.

Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs in women with apical prolapse. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 4, 2012. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: For anatomic and functional analyses, we included studies comparing mesh sacrocolpopexy to native tissue vaginal repairs with at least 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was anatomic “success” after surgery. Secondary outcomes were reoperation and symptom outcomes. We included large case series and comparative studies with shorter follow-up to increase power for adverse event analyses. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Evidence quality was assessed with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies reported the same outcome. We included 13 comparative studies for anatomic success, reoperation, and symptom outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence supports improved anatomic outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy; very low-quality evidence shows no differences in reoperation between sacrocolpopexy and native tissue vaginal repairs. Evidence was insufficient regarding which procedures result in improved bladder or bowel symptoms. Low-quality evidence showed no differences in postoperative sexual function. Adverse event data were compiled and meta-analyzed from 79 studies. When including larger noncomparative studies, ileus or small bowel obstruction (2.7% compared with 0.2%, P<.01), mesh or suture complications (4.2% compared with 0.4%, P<.01), and thromboembolic phenomena (0.6% compared with 0.1%, P=.03) were more common after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs. CONCLUSION: When anatomic durability is a priority, we suggest that mesh sacrocolpopexy may be the preferred surgical option. When minimizing adverse events or reoperation is the priority, there is no strong evidence supporting one approach over the other.

Nonsurgical management of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of nonsurgical abnormal uterine bleeding treatments for bleeding control, quality of life (QOL), pain, sexual health, patient satisfaction, additional treatments needed, and adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to May 2012. We included randomized controlled trials of nonsurgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction and abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction. Interventions included the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, combined oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progestins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antifibrinolytics. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, danazol, and placebo were allowed as comparators. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened 5,848 citations and extracted eligible trials. Studies were assessed for quality and strength of evidence. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. For reduction of menstrual bleeding in women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (71–95% reduction), combined OCPs (35–69% reduction), extended cycle oral progestins (87% reduction), tranexamic acid (26–54% reduction), and NSAIDs (10–52% reduction) were all effective treatments. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system, combined OCPs, and antifibrinolytics were all superior to luteal-phase progestins (20% increase in bleeding to 67% reduction). The levonorgestrel intrauterine system was superior to combined OCPs and NSAIDs. Antifibrinolytics were superior to NSAIDs for menstrual bleeding reduction. Data were limited on other important outcomes such as QOL for women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction and for all outcomes for women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction. CONCLUSION: For the reduction in mean blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding presumed secondary to abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction, we recommend the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system over OCPs, luteal-phase progestins, and NSAIDs. For other outcomes (QOL, pain, sexual health, patient satisfaction, additional treatments needed, and adverse events) and for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction, we were unable to make recommendations based on the limited available data.

Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to describe patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and to describe predictors of preference for uterine preservation. STUDY DESIGN This multicenter, cross-sectional study evaluated patient preferences for uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in women with prolapse symptoms who were being examined for initial urogynecologic evaluation. Before meeting the physician, the women completed a questionnaire that asked them to indicate their prolapse treatment preference (uterine preservation vs hysterectomy) for scenarios in which the efficacy of treatment varied. Patient characteristics that were associated with preferences were determined, and predictors for uterine preservation preference were identified with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Two hundred thirteen women participated. Assuming outcomes were equal between hysterectomy and uterine preservation, 36% of the women preferred uterine preservation; 20% of the women preferred hysterectomy, and 44% of the women had no strong preference. If uterine preservation was superior, 46% of the women preferred uterine preservation, and 11% of the women preferred hysterectomy. If hysterectomy was superior, 21% of the women still preferred uterine preservation, despite inferior efficacy. On multivariable logistic regression, women in the South had decreased odds of preferring uterine preservation compared with women in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.66). Women with at least some college education (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.08-7.62) and those who believed that the uterus is important for their sense of self (OR, 28.2; 95% CI, 5.00-158.7) had increased odds for preferring uterine preservation. CONCLUSION A higher proportion of women with prolapse symptoms who were examined for urogynecologic evaluation preferred uterine preservation, compared with hysterectomy. Geographic region, education level, and belief that the uterus is important for a sense of self were predictors of preference for uterine preservation.

Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: comparing pubococcygeal and midpubic lines with clinical staging

Introduction and hypothesisThe aim of the study was to determine which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reference line for staging pelvic organ prolapse, the pubococcygeal line (PCL) vs. the midpubic line (MPL), has the highest agreement with clinical staging.MethodsA retrospective study of women with pelvic floor complaints who underwent dynamic pelvic MRI from January 2004 to April 2007 was conducted. Two radiologists staged descent on MRI for each pelvic compartment (anterior, apical, posterior) by consensus, using PCL and MPL reference lines. Agreement between MRI and clinical staging was estimated using weighted kappas.ResultsTwenty women were included. Agreement between clinical and PCL staging was fair in the anterior (κ = 0.29) and poor in the apical (κ = 0.03) and posterior (κ = 0.08) compartments. Agreement between clinical and MPL staging was fair in the anterior (κ = 0.37), apical (κ = 0.31), and posterior (κ = 0.25) compartments.ConclusionsThe MPL has higher agreement with clinical staging than the PCL. However, neither reference line has good agreement with clinical staging.