A randomized controlled trial comparing two voiding trials after midurethral sling with or without colporrhaphy
- PMID: 30293166
- DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3783-3
A randomized controlled trial comparing two voiding trials after midurethral sling with or without colporrhaphy
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: To compare the force of the stream (FOS) voiding trial with the standard voiding trial (SVT) after outpatient midurethral sling (MUS) whether or not colporrhaphy was performed.
Methods: This is a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of patients scheduled for MUS or colporrhaphy. Sample size of 102 patients was calculated for 80% power. Patients were randomized to FOS or SVT. Primary outcome was the number of unexpected postoperative visits (UPOVs) for voiding dysfunction (VD) or urinary tract infection (UTI). Voiding dysfunction was defined as urinary retention or post-void residual (PVR) > 200 cc. Subjects rated FOS using a visual analog scale (VAS). Criterion for non-inferiority was an upper limit of < 10% for the 95% CI. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute. Cary, NC).
Results: One hundred two subjects were included (49 FOS, 53 SVT). Immediate postoperative catheterization for FOS and SVT was 8.2% (n = 4) and 9.4% (n = 5), respectively. Recovery time was significantly less for FOS versus SVT (p = 0.0002). Total UPOVs were five (10.2%) and two (3.8%) for FOS and SVT, respectively. Two FOS subjects who had MUS + colporrhaphy passed their VT and had subsequent UPOVs for VD. No evidence of non-inferiority was noted when comparing FOS to SVT for total UPOVs: CI: 6.0% (-5.2, 17.2) for postoperative VD [CI: 6.1% (-4.0, 16.2)] or UTIs [CI: 0.3% (-9.4, 10.1)].
Conclusions: No evidence of non-inferiority was noted comparing FOS with SVT for unexpected postoperative visits for voiding dysfunction or UTI. This study shows the need for larger studies to assess the use of the FOS method in patients undergoing surgery for prolapse with or without MUS.
Keywords: Force of stream; Midurethral sling; Pelvic organ prolapse; Postoperative voiding trials; Voiding dysfunction.
Similar articles
-
Assessment of voiding after sling: a randomized trial of 2 methods of postoperative catheter management after midurethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;212(5):597.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.033. Epub 2014 Nov 27. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015. PMID: 25434837 Clinical Trial.
-
Assessment of Urinary Dysfunction After Midurethral Sling Placement: A Comparison of Two Voiding Trial Methods.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024 Jun;31(6):533-540. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.04.003. Epub 2024 Apr 4. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024. PMID: 38582258
-
Normal preoperative urodynamic testing does not predict voiding dysfunction after Burch colposuspension versus pubovaginal sling.J Urol. 2008 Nov;180(5):2076-80. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.027. Epub 2008 Sep 18. J Urol. 2008. PMID: 18804239 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
[Predictive factors of immediate post-operative acute urinary retention or voiding dysfunction following mid-urethral sling surgery: A literature review].Prog Urol. 2020 Dec;30(17):1118-1125. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2020.05.008. Epub 2020 May 31. Prog Urol. 2020. PMID: 32493661 French.
-
Active Compared With Passive Voiding Trials After Midurethral Sling Surgery: A Systematic Review.Obstet Gynecol. 2024 May 1;143(5):633-643. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005567. Epub 2024 Mar 28. Obstet Gynecol. 2024. PMID: 38547487
Cited by
-
The efficacy of force of stream assessment for post-operative catheter management: a retrospective cohort study.Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Nov;33(11):3291-3296. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05096-7. Epub 2022 Apr 22. Int Urogynecol J. 2022. PMID: 35451618
-
Methods of postoperative void trial management after urogynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Syst Rev. 2023 Jul 7;12(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02233-1. Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37420310 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials