Occult incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse - Does it matter?

19Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: Many surgeons perform an anti-incontinence procedure during prolapse surgery in women in whom occult stress urinary incontinence has been demonstrated. Others prefer a two-step approach. It was the aim of the study to find out how many women really need a second operation and if a positive cough stress test with the prolapse reduced is associated with the development of stress urinary incontinence after prolapse surgery. Methods: 233 women were operated for primary or recurrent prolapse without complaining of SUI. Preoperatively, 53/233 women had a full urogynecological workup with the prolapse reduced. Postoperatively, if the patient suffered from stress urinary incontinence, an anti-incontinence surgery was performed. Results: 19/53 (35.8%) women who had a stress test with the prolapse reduced before surgery were defined as occult stress incontinent. Only 3 women (15.8%) of these 19 women developed symptoms of incontinence after prolapse surgery and had to be operated because of that. 18/233 (7.7%) complained of SUI 6 weeks to 6 months after surgery and received a TVT-tape. Conclusion: The incidence of stress urinary incontinence manifesting after prolapse surgery is low in this study with 7.7%. This fact and the possible severe side effects of an incontinence operation justify a two-step approach if the patient is counseled and agrees. However, there is a small subgroup of women (3/19, 15.8%) with preoperative OSUI and SUI after surgery, who would benefit from a one-step approach. Further research is required to identify these women before surgical intervention. © I. Holzapfel Publishers 2010.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jundt, K., Wagner, S., Von Bodungen, V., Friese, K., & Peschers, U. M. (2010). Occult incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse - Does it matter? European Journal of Medical Research, 15(3), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-783x-15-3-112

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free