What maximal urethral closure pressure threshold predicts failure of mid-urethral sling surgery?
- PMID: 39266150
- DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2024.04.014
What maximal urethral closure pressure threshold predicts failure of mid-urethral sling surgery?
Abstract
Objective: Low Maximal Urethral Closure Pressure (MUCP) is linked to unfavourable outcome of anti-incontinence surgery, however the cut-off value varied within studies. This study aimed to predict the cut-off value of MUCP that contributes to poor outcome of Mid-Urethral Sling (MUS) surgery in Urinary Stress Incontinence (USI) patients.
Materials and methods: Records of 729 women underwent MUS procedure from January 2004 to April 2017 reviewed. Patients were divided into four MUCP groups, which were <20 cmH2O (≥20 and < 40) cmH2O (≥40 and ≤ 60) cmH2O and >60 cmH2O. Objective evaluation comprising 72-h voiding diary, multichannel urodynamic study (UDS) and post-operative bladder neck angle measurement. Subjective evaluation through validated urinary symptoms questionnaires. Primary outcome was objective cure rate of negative urine leak on provocative filling cystometry and 1-h pad test weight <2 g, and subjective cure rate was negative response to question 3 of UDI-6. Secondary outcome was identifying risk factors of cure failure for MUS in low MUCP groups. To identify the risk factors of cure failure, MUCP groups were narrowed down into <40 cmH2O or ≥40 cmH2O.
Results: Total of 688 women evaluated. Overall objective cure rate was 88.2% with subjective cure rate of 85.9%. Objective and subjective cure rates were lower in groups with low MUCP <40 cmH2O. Failure of MUS correlate significantly in patients with low MUCP <40 cmH20, bladder neck angle <30° and Functional urethral length (FUL) < 2 cm.
Conclusion: Women with MUCP <40cmH2O, bladder neck angle <30° and FUL < 2 cm are more likely to have unfavorable outcome following MUS surgery. We proposed the cut-off low MUCP <40cmH2O as predictor for fail MUS surgery in SUI patients.
Keywords: Intrinsic sphincter deficiency; Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP); Mid-urethral sling; Stress urinary incontinence.
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Single incision mini sling for the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence: Surgical outcomes and preoperative predictors of failure.Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Sep;63(5):685-691. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2024.03.020. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024. PMID: 39266149
-
Outcomes of Mid-Urethral Sling for Urodynamic Stress Incontinence Following Extensive Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery.Int Urogynecol J. 2024 Oct;35(10):2045-2054. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05918-w. Epub 2024 Sep 16. Int Urogynecol J. 2024. PMID: 39284970
-
Is single incision midurethral sling effective in patients with low maximal urethral closure pressure?Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;55(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.09.013. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 26927242
-
Predictors and outcomes of Mid-urethral sling continence surgeries for stress urinary incontinence among Taiwanese women: What works best?Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Nov;63(6):826-835. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2024.07.016. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024. PMID: 39481988 Review.
-
[Management of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after anti-incontinence surgery].Ceska Gynekol. 2017 Winter;82(1):59-64. Ceska Gynekol. 2017. PMID: 28252312 Review. Czech.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous