Minimally Invasive Burch Colposuspension to Reduce De Novo Stress Incontinence: The MICRO Randomized Trial.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Tsung Mou, Akira Gillingham, Julia Geynisman-Tan, Oluwateniola Brown, Christina Lewicky-Gaupp, Margaret G Mueller, Kimberly Kenton, Sarah Collins
{"title":"Minimally Invasive Burch Colposuspension to Reduce De Novo Stress Incontinence: The MICRO Randomized Trial.","authors":"Tsung Mou, Akira Gillingham, Julia Geynisman-Tan, Oluwateniola Brown, Christina Lewicky-Gaupp, Margaret G Mueller, Kimberly Kenton, Sarah Collins","doi":"10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to determine whether the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension is superior to no anti-incontinence procedure during minimally invasive surgical sacrocolpopexy for stress-continent patients in decreasing rates of postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized superiority trial, we recruited stress-continent prolapse patients undergoing either conventional or robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with negative preoperative supine cough stress tests. Patients were randomized to receive either prophylactic retropubic colposuspension or no retropubic colposuspension (control). The primary outcome was the composite measure of postoperative de novo SUI at 3 months, which included either (1) \"Yes\" to Question #17 on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 endorsing symptoms of urinary leakage with coughing, sneezing, laughing, (2) positive retrofill cough stress test, or (3) any SUI treatment after sacrocolpopexy. Using data from the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial, a sample size of 42 participants would demonstrate the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension to be superior to control with a superiority margin of 15%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty patients underwent randomization, with 26 assigned to prophylactic retropubic colposuspension and 24 as controls. Three months after surgery, 50.0% of the patients in the retropubic colposuspension group and 41.7% of controls met one or more criteria for de novo SUI (<i>P =</i> 0.555). There was no difference between the retropubic colposuspension and control groups in symptoms of urinary frequency, urgency incontinence, or urinary retention at 3 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among stress-continent patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical sacrocolpopexy in this single-center study, the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension was not superior to no retropubic colposuspension in preventing postoperative de novo SUI at 3 months after surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":22043,"journal":{"name":"Southern Medical Journal","volume":"118 9","pages":"622-627"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001872","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to determine whether the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension is superior to no anti-incontinence procedure during minimally invasive surgical sacrocolpopexy for stress-continent patients in decreasing rates of postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Methods: In this randomized superiority trial, we recruited stress-continent prolapse patients undergoing either conventional or robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with negative preoperative supine cough stress tests. Patients were randomized to receive either prophylactic retropubic colposuspension or no retropubic colposuspension (control). The primary outcome was the composite measure of postoperative de novo SUI at 3 months, which included either (1) "Yes" to Question #17 on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 endorsing symptoms of urinary leakage with coughing, sneezing, laughing, (2) positive retrofill cough stress test, or (3) any SUI treatment after sacrocolpopexy. Using data from the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial, a sample size of 42 participants would demonstrate the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension to be superior to control with a superiority margin of 15%.

Results: Fifty patients underwent randomization, with 26 assigned to prophylactic retropubic colposuspension and 24 as controls. Three months after surgery, 50.0% of the patients in the retropubic colposuspension group and 41.7% of controls met one or more criteria for de novo SUI (P = 0.555). There was no difference between the retropubic colposuspension and control groups in symptoms of urinary frequency, urgency incontinence, or urinary retention at 3 months.

Conclusions: Among stress-continent patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical sacrocolpopexy in this single-center study, the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension was not superior to no retropubic colposuspension in preventing postoperative de novo SUI at 3 months after surgery.

微创Burch阴道悬吊减少新生压力性尿失禁:MICRO随机试验。
目的:目的是确定在微创骶阴道固定术治疗压力性尿失禁患者时,在降低术后新生压力性尿失禁(SUI)的发生率方面,添加预防性耻骨后阴道悬吊是否优于无防尿失禁手术。方法:在这项随机优势试验中,我们招募了接受常规或机器人辅助腹腔镜骶colpop固定术且术前仰卧咳嗽压力测试阴性的压力抑制型脱垂患者。患者随机接受预防性阴后阴道悬吊术或不接受阴后阴道悬吊术(对照组)。主要终点是术后3个月时新生儿SUI的综合测量,包括(1)对骨盆底窘迫量表-20中问题17的回答为“是”,证实尿漏症状伴咳嗽、打喷嚏、大笑,(2)补咳应激试验阳性,或(3)骶髋固定术后任何SUI治疗。使用阴道悬液和尿量减少试验的数据,42名参与者的样本量将证明添加预防性阴部后阴道悬液优于对照组,优势幅度为15%。结果:50例患者接受随机分组,其中26例进行预防性阴后阴道悬吊,24例作为对照。术后3个月,阴后阴道悬吊组有50.0%的患者和41.7%的对照组符合一项或多项SUI复发标准(P = 0.555)。在3个月时,阴后阴道悬吊组和对照组在尿频、急迫性失禁或尿潴留症状方面没有差异。结论:在本单中心研究中,在微创骶髋固定术患者中,增加预防性耻骨后阴道悬吊术在预防术后3个月新生SUI方面并不优于不进行耻骨后阴道悬吊术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Southern Medical Journal
Southern Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
222
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Birmingham, Alabama-based Southern Medical Association (SMA), the Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) has for more than 100 years provided the latest clinical information in areas that affect patients'' daily lives. Now delivered to individuals exclusively online, the SMJ has a multidisciplinary focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists in all relevant aspects of the profession, including medicine and medical specialties, surgery and surgery specialties; child and maternal health; mental health; emergency and disaster medicine; public health and environmental medicine; bioethics and medical education; and quality health care, patient safety, and best practices. Each month, articles span the spectrum of medical topics, providing timely, up-to-the-minute information for both primary care physicians and specialists. Contributors include leaders in the healthcare field from across the country and around the world. The SMJ enables physicians to provide the best possible care to patients in this age of rapidly changing modern medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信