Outcomes of Concurrent Surgery for Prolapse Repair and Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Pilot Observational Study

Sheema Yousuf; Nazli  Hameed

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75i6.13569

Authors

Sheema Yousuf Department of Urogynecology, Shalamar Hospital, Lahore Pakistan
Nazli Hameed Department of Urogynecology, Shalamar Hospital, Lahore Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75i6.13569

Keywords:

Stress Urinary Incontinence, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Concomitant Surgery, Cough Stress Test

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of combined surgery versus isolated prolapse surgery in alleviating urinary leakage symptoms.

Study Design: Quasi-experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Urogynecology unit of Shalamar Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from Sep 2024 to May 2025.

Methodology: A total of 17 participants presenting with overt urinary leakage along with prolapse of pelvic viscera, scheduled for surgery, were included in the study. The primary outcome was the resolution of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Negative cough stress test conducted at six months was considered an objective cure. Mean±SD was used for continuous variables, while categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Statistical significance was considered at a p-value of less than 0.05.

Results: Out of the 17 patients, 9(52%) underwent exclusive prolapse repair, while 8(47%) received both prolapse repair and anti-incontinence surgery. At six months, women in the combined surgery group were more likely to report the absence of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) compared to those in the prolapse surgery-only group, with 75% versus 33%, respectively. Additionally, two women (25%) in the combined group required further treatment for SUI (all physiotherapy), compared to six women (66%) in the control group, who also received physiotherapy.

Conclusions: Women are less prone to have incontinence after combined surgery compared with isolated POP surgery and are less likely to undergo additional treatment for SUI.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Mostafaei H, Sadeghi BH, Hajebrahimi S, Salehi PH, Ghojazadeh M, et al. Prevalence of female urinary incontinence in the developing world: A systematic review and meta-analysis-a report from the Developing World Committee of the International Continence Society and Iranian Research Centre for evidence-based medicine. Neurourol Urodyn 2020; 39(4): 1063–1086.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24342

2. Gedefaw G, Demis A. Burden of pelvic organ prolapse in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Womens Health 2020; 20:166.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-01039-w

3. Jokhio A, Rizvi R, Rizvi J, MacArthur C. Urinary incontinence in women in rural Pakistan: prevalence, severity, associated factors and impact on life, BJOG 2013; 120: 180–186.

https://doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12074

4. Wong JWH, Ramm O. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2021; 64(2): 314-320.

https://doi:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000615

5. Sivaslioglu AS, Mirzazada F, Hodgson R, et al. Pubourethral plication procedure (PPP) for minimal invasive cure of SUI without tapes. Authorea 2023 Feb 22; 14.

https://doi:10.22541/au.167707434.47896077/v1

6. Oh S, Jeon MJ. How and on whom to perform uterine-preserving surgery for uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2022; 65(4): 317-324.

https://doi:10.5468/ogs.22003

7. van der Ploeg JM, Oude Rengerink K, van der Steen A, van Leeuwen JH, Stekelenburg J, Bongers MY, et al. Transvaginal prolapse repair with or without the addition of a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a randomized trial. BJOG 2015; 122: 1022–1030.

https://doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13325

8. Jocelyn F, Alex S, Joseph P, Tanya PH, Shweta PD, Amanda MA, et al. Success of Concomitant Versus Interval Slings for Prevention and Treatment of Bothersome de Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2022; 28(4): 194-200.

https://doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001092

9. Khayyami Y, Elmelund M, Klarskov N. Urinary incontinence before and after pelvic organ prolapse surgery-a national database study. Int Urogynecol J 2021; 32(8): 2119–2123.

https://doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04738-6

10. Pecchio S, Novara L, Sgro LG, Rapetti G, Fuso L,et al. Concomitant stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Opportunity or overtreatment? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 250: 36-40.

https://doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.057

11. Sandvik H, Hunskaar S, Seim A, Hermstad R, Vanvik A, et al. Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993; 47(6): 497-499.

https://doi:10.1136/jech.47.6.497

12. Sharma JB, Kakkad V, Roy KK, Kumari R, Pandey K. Role of Incontinence Severity Index in Evaluating Severity and Impact of Treatment Of Stress Urinary Incontinence. J Midlife Health 2022; 13(2): 139-144.

https://doi:10.4103/jmh.JMH_113_20

13. Zhu L, Guo Y, Wen Y, Yan H, Li Q, et al. Risk factors and countermeasures of stress urinary incontinence after mesh implantation for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Esp Urol 2023; 76(3): 182–188.

https://doi:10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20237603.21

14. Borstad E, Abdelnoor M, Staff AC, Kulseng-Hanssen S. Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2010; 21: 179–186.

https://doi:10.1007/s00192-009-1007-6

15. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4: CD004014.

https://doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5

16. Durnea CM, Pergialiotis V, Duffy JMN, Bergstrom L, Elfituri A, Doumouchtsis SK; CHORUS, an International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health. A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set. Int Urogynecol J 2018; 29(12): 1727-1745.

https://doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3781-5

17. Matsuoka PK, Pacetta AM, Baracat EC, Haddad JM. Should prophylactic anti-incontinence procedures be performed at the time of prolapse repair? System Rev Int Urogynecol J 2015; 26: 187–193. https://doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2537-0

18. De Tayrac R, Antosh DD, Baessler K, et al. Summary: 2021 International Consultation on Incontinence evidence-based surgical pathway for pelvic organ prolapse. J Clin Med 2022; 11(20): 6106. https://doi:10.3390/jcm11206106

19. Husby KR, Gradel KO, Klarskov N. Stress urinary incontinence after operations for uterine prolapse: a nationwide cohort study. Urogynecol 2023; 29(2): 121–127.

https://doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001264

20. Zemtsov GE, Jelovsek JE, O’Shea M, Luchristt D. Trends in performance of anti-incontinence treatment at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair from 2011 to 2019. Urogynecol 2022; 28(8): 486–491. https://doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001196

21. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1557–1566. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMoa054208