Search

Introduction and Hypothesis: Despite growing interest in a mobile-app bowel diary to assess fecal incontinence (FI) symptoms, data are limited regarding the correlation between mobile-app diary and questionnaire-based outcomes. The primary aim is to determine whether percentage reduction in FI episodes (FIEs)/week recorded on a mobile-app diary correlates with changes in scores of validated FI-symptom measures from baseline to 12 weeks in women with FI undergoing percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) versus sham. Methods: This is a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in which women with FI underwent PTNS or sham. FIEs were collected using a mobile-app diary at baseline and after 12 weekly sessions. FI-symptom-validated measures included St. Mark's, Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation, FI Severity Index (FISI), Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Colorectal Anal Impact Questionnaire, FI Quality of Life, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Patient Global Symptom Control (PGSC) rating. Spearman's correlation coefficient (ρ) was computed between %-reduction in FIEs/week and change in questionnaire scores from baseline to 12 weeks. Significance was set at 0.005 to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Baseline characteristics of 163 women (109 PTNS, 54 sham) include mean age 63.4±11.6, 81% white, body mass index 29.4±6.6 kg/m2, 4% previous FI surgeries, 6.6±5.5 FIEs/week, and St. Mark's score 17.4±2.6. A significant correlation was demonstrated between %-reduction in FIEs/week and all questionnaires (p<0.005). A moderate-strength correlation (|ρ|>0.4) was observed for St. Mark's (ρ=0.48), FISI (ρ=0.46), PGI-I (ρ=0.51), and PGSC (ρ=−0.43). Conclusions: In women with FI randomized to PTNS versus sham, a moderate correlation was noted between FIEs measured via mobile-app diary and FI-symptom-validated questionnaire scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: In women with advanced prolapse, differences in vaginal apex anchoring sites may impact surgical outcomes over time. The primary aim was to compare 5-year surgical outcomes of uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) versus sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) in women with advanced (stage III–IV) prolapse. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted in a subset of women with advanced prolapse from a multicenter randomized trial comparing ULS versus SSLF and its extended follow-up, using publicly accessible de-identified datasets. The primary outcome was time to failure, defined as any one of (1) apical descent > 1/3 into the vaginal canal or anterior/posterior compartment beyond the hymen, (2) bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, or (3) re-treatment. Secondary outcomes include symptom severity measured by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI) and adverse events. Results: Of 285 women, 90/147 (61.2%) in ULS and 88/138 (63.8%) in SSLF had advanced prolapse. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups except for median-vaginal deliveries (3.0 [2.0, 5.0] versus 3.0 [2.0, 4.0], p < 0.01). The median time to failure was 1.7 years ULS versus 2.0 years SSLF (p = 0.42). Surgical failure increased over time in both groups with no intergroup difference; by year 5, the estimated failure rate was 67.7% ULS versus 71.5% SSLF (adjusted difference −3.8; 95%CI [−21.9, 14.2]). No differences were noted in individual failure components (p > 0.05). POPDI scores improved over 5 years without intergroup difference (ULS −68.0 ± 61.1 versus SSLF −69.9 ± 60.3, adjusted difference −0.1 [−20.0, 19.9]). No difference in adverse events were observed (p > 0.05). Conclusion: In women with advanced prolapse, surgical failure, symptom severity, and adverse events did not differ between ULS and SSLF over 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The primary aim was to compare subjective treatment success among women in short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up after mid-urethral sling (MUS). Symptom severity, condition-specific quality of life (QOL), and patient satisfaction were also examined. Methods: Women undergoing a primary MUS between 2001 and 2010 were identified by CPT code. Eligible subjects were mailed the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ). Follow-up intervals were short term (≤ 36 months), mid term (37–70 months), and long term (119–200 months). The primary outcome of treatment success was defined as responses of "not at all" or "somewhat" to both stress urinary incontinence (SUI) subscales on the UDI-6. Results: Of 896 respondents, 361 were assessed in the short-term (23.3 ± 7.2 months), 251 in the mid-term (49.8 ± 9.1 months), and 284 in the long-term group (147.9 ± 20.6 months). Treatment success was 75.4% in the short-, 62.3% in the mid-, and 67.0% in the long-term groups (p < 0.01). Logistic regression showed women with mid- and long-term follow-up were nearly half as likely as their short-term counterparts to report treatment success (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36, 0.74). UDI-6 and PFIQ-7 scores differed significantly among the short-, mid- and long-term groups (p < 0.01). Patient satisfaction was similar, 83.3% in the short-, 76.6% in the mid-, and 78.2% in the long-term follow-up (p = 0.31). Conclusion: Women with short-term follow-up had the highest subjective treatment success rates; mid- and long-term follow-up was lower, but sustained after 3 years. Symptom severity and impact on QOL were lowest in the short-term group. However, high satisfaction was noted across all groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The current study aims to assess the continence rate of a "second primary" midurethral sling (MUS) in women with recurrent/persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after sling excision compared to a historical cohort who underwent a repeat MUS. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of women who underwent excision of a primary MUS and placement of a "second primary" MUS from 2009 to 2016 compared to a historical cohort who underwent a repeat MUS from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was continence rate, defined as "not at all" or "somewhat" to Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) SUI subscale questions. Secondary outcomes included assessment of symptom severity (UDI-6), symptom-specific quality of life, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Medical and Epidemiologic Aspects of Aging (MESA), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Results: Survey responses were available for 23/64 (36%) in the "second primary" MUS group versus 88/135 (65%) in the historical cohort. Mean follow-up in months, second primary: 41.8 ± 26.1 versus repeat: 36.2 ± 14.1, p = 0.16 and age (years): 56.4 ± 10.7 versus 59.8 ± 10.8, p = 0.19. Continence rates were 48% in "second primary" versus 56% in the repeat group (p = 0.50). Both groups had significant improvement in questionnaire scores postoperatively with no intergroup differences. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that odds of success did not differ between groups (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.27–1.99). Conclusions: In women with recurrent/persistent SUI, repeat and "second primary" MUS procedures demonstrate similar success outcomes and improvement in UI symptom distress and QOL. Continued research is needed for this increasingly important clinical question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To characterize symptom‐specific distress and impact on quality of life (QOL) among women with urge, passive, and combined urge/passive fecal incontinence (FI) phenotypes. A secondary aim was to characterize FI symptom‐specific distress and impact on women with a novel fourth phenotype, stress FI. Methods: Women with at least monthly FI from 2003 to 2017 were included. Participants completed the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire (MMHQ) including MHQ and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Anorectal manometry (ARM) and endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) testing was performed. Total MHQ and FISI scores were compared across FI subtypes controlling for pertinent baseline covariates. Results: The cohort included 404 subjects, 220 meeting criteria for urge FI, 67 passive FI, and 117 combined urge/passive FI. On MHQ, women with combined urge/passive FI were most impacted (p < 0.01). FISI scores were significantly different from combined urge/passive FI having the greatest impact (38.1 ± 12.5) and urge FI (31.1 ± 11.3), p < 0.01 having the least. No differences were observed in ARM measurements or anal sphincter defects among the three groups (all p > 0.05). Twenty‐nine subjects were identified with stress FI. There were no differences in overall MHQ or FISI scores or anal sphincter evaluation among the urge, passive, and stress FI groups (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Women with combined urge/passive FI have higher symptom distress and impact on QOL than urge or passive FI alone. Further research is needed to determine the significance of stress FI as a subtype and response to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]