4.0 Article

Overactive Bladder Symptoms After Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000700

关键词

overactive bladder; pelvic organ prolapse; sling; surgery; urgency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This study aimed to identify the characteristics associated with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms perioperatively in patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery with and without slings and to determine the rate of OAB symptom resolution postoperatively. Methods This retrospective, single-institution study involved women undergoing prolapse surgery with and without concomitant midurethral sling from 2011 to 2016. A validated questionnaire was used to determine OAB symptoms preoperatively and postoperatively. The primary outcome was rate of resolution in OAB symptoms after POP surgery with and without midurethral sling. Baseline characteristics and surgery type were presented, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were applied to evaluate characteristics associated with OAB symptoms at the first postoperative visit. Results The analysis included 203 patients. Among those with baseline OAB symptoms, 103 (61%) had symptom resolution, whereas 66 (39.1%) reported persistent symptoms. Among 34 patients without baseline OAB symptoms, 6% developed de novo symptoms. Older age was found to be a significant risk factor for persistence of symptoms postoperatively both on univariate (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1; P = 0.038) and multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio, 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1; P = 0.049). The rate of medication discontinuation postoperatively was 25%. Conclusions Approximately 61% of patients undergoing POP surgery had resolution of OAB symptoms postoperatively whether or not an incontinence procedure was performed. Older age was significantly related to persistent OAB symptoms in both univariate (P = 0.038) and multivariate (P = 0.049) models. The rate of de novo OAB symptoms was 6%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据