4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence after stress incontinence surgery

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 193, Issue 6, Pages 2083-2087

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.038

Keywords

sacral neuromodulation; interstim therapy; overactive bladder symptoms; stress urinary incontinence; pubovaginal sling; urinary incontinence therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the response to sacral neuromodulation in women with refractory, nonobstructive urinary urge incontinence after stress incontinence surgery. Study design: We reviewed the medical records of women in whom sacral neuromodulation was performed for worsening or de novo urinary urge incontinence after a stress incontinence procedure. All patients had undergone preliminary test stimulation. Demographics, surgical and urogynecologic history, including bladder diary and pad weight test, and Urodynamic parameters were evaluated. Results: Of 34 women, 22 (65%) responded to the test stimulation and underwent permanent lead implant. There was no difference between responders and nonresponders with respect to type of stress incontinence surgery. Incontinence or urodynamic parameters were not different between responders and nonresponders. Factors that were predictive of a positive response were women aged less than 55 years (P = .01), the test stimulation performed within 4 years of the stress incontinence procedure (P = .01), and evidence of pelvic floor muscle activity (P = .03). Conclusion: Sacral neuromodulation is a viable option for the treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence that occurs after stress urinary incontinence surgery. Older women with no pelvic floor activity who are remote from their incontinence surgery may have a suboptimal response. (c) 2005 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available