THE FREQUENCY OF DE NOVO STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE AFTER SURGICAL TREATMENT OF PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aim of the study – to evaluate the frequency of de novo CHM after surgical treatment of PT, depending on the presence of various risk factors and during a single-stage preventive operation to correct it.
Materials and methods. The study included 835 women who were divided into groups. The first group included 110 patients who had no known risk factors for developing LMS. The second group consisted of 528 patients with risk factors and undiagnosed latent incontinence. The third group included 109 women with diagnosed latent urinary incontinence who chose simultaneous correction of both diseases. The fourth group consisted of 88 women with latent incontinence who refused to undergo a single–stage preventive operation. Cases of postoperative LMS were recorded as patients complained about them or during a follow-up examination one year after surgical treatment of prolapse.
Results. The study showed that the development of de novo SNM occurred in all groups of patients. In the absence of latent urinary incontinence, its prevalence is not high and does not require preventive surgery. Latent incontinence increases the risk of developing postoperative LMS by 7 times. Simultaneous correction of both diseases is an effective method of preventing postoperative LMS. However, approximately one in four patients with latent incontinence does not need preventive surgery.
Conclusion. The most significant risk factor for the development of postoperative LMS is latent urinary incontinence, and therefore it is advisable to diagnose it in all cases of planning surgical treatment for acute urinary tract infections. At the stage of preoperative counseling, in order to make a joint decision, it is necessary to inform patients with diagnosed latent incontinence about the likelihood of this problem, the possibility of performing a one-step preventive operation and the risks associated with its implementation.
Keywords
Article Details
Information about financing and conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How to Cite
References
1. Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Maher C, Haya N, Crawford TJ, Brown J. Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 8(8): CD013108. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013108
2. Oliveira IKB, da Silva Calisto SL, Ferreira CWS, de Aguiar Cavalcanti G. Occult Urinary Incontinence, Diabetes, Obesity, Prolapse Severity, and Type of Surgical Repair as Risk Factors for De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women Undergoing Surgical Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2025; 44(1): 194-206. doi: 10.1002/nau.25619
3. Patel PD, Amrute KV, Badlani GH. Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: A review of etiological factors. Indian J Urol. 2007; 23(2): 135-141. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.32064
4. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21(1): 5-26. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9
5. Thubert T, Deffieux X, Jousse M, Guinet-Lacoste A, Ismael SS, Amarenco G. Posterior vaginal wall pull down maneuver: a clinical test to diagnose intrinsic sphincter deficiency in women suffering from genuine urinary stress incontinence. Int J Urol. 2013; 20(11): 1124-9. doi: 10.1111/iju.12122
6. Bump RC, Fantl JA, Hurt WG. The mechanism of urinary continence in women with severe uterovaginal prolapse: results of barrier studies. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 72(3 Pt 1): 291-295. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(89)90759-5
7. Gluck O, Rusavy Z, Grinstein E, Abdelkhalek Y, Deval B. Effect of Age on Complications Rate and Surgical Outcomes in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022; 29(6): 753-758. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.01.017
8. Grinstein E, Gluck O, Rusavy Z, Ginath S, Deval B. Effect of body mass index on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and sacrocolpopexy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025; 308: 29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.02.031
9. Sato H, Abe H, Ikeda A, Miyagawa T, Tsukada S. Severity of Cystocele and Risk Factors of Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence after Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2022; 11(1): 28-35. doi: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_2_21
10. Kawaguchi S, Narimoto K, Urata S, Takeyama M, Kadono Y, Mizokami A. Predictors of persistent stress urinary incontinence after transvaginal mesh repair. BMC Womens Health. 2018; 18(1): 174. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0667-0
11. Alas AN, Chinthakanan O, Espaillat L, Plowright L, Davila GW, Aguilar VC. De novo stress urinary incontinence after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in women without occult incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(4): 583-590. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3149-7
12. Kumari R, Krishnaraja VB, Thariani K, Deoghare M, Kachhawa G, Sharma JB, Bhatla N. Comparison of various modalities to diagnose occult stress urinary incontinence in pelvic organ prolapse. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2024; 13(9): 2386-2391. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242487
13. Edenfield A, Patnam R, Swift SA. Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of latent stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38(4): 7-11. doi: 10.1002/nau.23864
14. Syan R, Dallas KB, Sohlberg E, Rogo-Gupta L, Elliott CS, Enemchukwu EA. Rates and Risk Factors for Future Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery after Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in a Large Population-based Cohort in California. Urology. 2019; 123: 81-86. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.008
15. Lo TS, Chua S, Kao CC, Hsieh WC, Wu MP, Tseng LH. Prophylactic midurethral sling insertion during transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery for advanced prolapse patients with high-risk predictors of postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30(9): 1541-1549. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3787-z
16. Bideau M, Allègre L, Callewaert G, Fatton B, de Tayrac R. Stress urinary incontinence after transvaginal mesh surgery for anterior and apical prolapse: preoperative risk factors. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(1): 111-117. doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04363-9
17. Song X, Zhu L, Ding J. The value of the preoperative 1-h pad test with pessary insertion for predicting the need for a mid-urethral sling following pelvic prolapse surgery: a cohort study. World J Urol. 2016; 34(3): 361-367. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1590-8
18. Barbier H, Carberry CL, Karjalainen PK, Mahoney CK, Galán VM, Rosamilia A, et al. International Urogynecology consultation chapter 2 committee 3: the clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse including investigations into associated morbidity/pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2023; 34(11): 2657-2688. doi: 10.1007/s00192-023-05629-8
19. Moosavi SY, Samad-Soltani T, Hajebrahimi S, Sadeghi-Ghyassi F, Pashazadeh F, Abolhasanpour N. Determining the risk factors and characteristics of de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review. Turk J Urol. 2020; 46(6): 427-435. doi: 10.5152/tud.2020.20291
20. Lo TS, Kamarudin M, Sun MJ, Su TH. Predictors and outcomes of Mid-urethral sling continence surgeries for stress urinary incontinence among Taiwanese women: What works best? Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024; 63(6): 826-835. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2024.07.016