Background: Electrical stimulation is commonly recommended to treat urinary incontinence in women. It includes several techniques that can be used to improve stress, urge, and mixed symptoms. However, the magnitude of the alleged benefits is not completely established. Objectives: To determine the effects of electrical stimulation in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress, urge, and mixed incontinence. Search Strategy: Our review included articles published between January 1980 and January 2012. We used the search terms "urinary incontinence", "electrical stimulation", "intravaginal", "tibial nerve" and "neuromodulation" for studies including female patients. Selection Criteria: We evaluated randomized trials that included electrical stimulation in at least one arm of the trial, to treat women with urinary incontinence. Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed the data from the trials, for inclusion or exclusion, and methodological analysis. Main Results: A total of 30 randomized clinical trials were included. Most of the trials involved intravaginal electrical stimulation. Intravaginal electrical stimulation showed effectiveness in treating urge urinary incontinence, but reported contradictory data regarding stress and mixed incontinence. Tibial-nerve stimulation showed promising results in randomized trials with a short follow-up period. Sacral-nerve stimulation yielded interesting results in refractory patients. Conclusions: Tibial-nerve and intravaginal stimulation have shown effectiveness in treating urge urinary incontinence. Sacral-nerve stimulation provided benefits in refractory cases. Presently available data provide no support for the use of intravaginal electrical stimulation to treat stress urinary incontinence in women. Further randomized trials are necessary to determine the magnitude of benefits, with long-term follow-up, and the effectiveness of other electrical-stimulation therapies.

Pelvic floor muscle training and perineal massage improved childbirth-related parameters and pelvic floor symptoms, whereas EPI-NO showed no benefit.

Pelvic floor trauma during childbirth is highly prevalent and is associated with long term risks of incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Societies and organizations have published clinical guidelines in order to standardise and improve the management of perineal care. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines on obstetric perineal trauma and care using the AGREE II instrument. We searched Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases from inception until the 15th of December 2018 using the terms "guideline" OR "guidelines", OR "guidance", OR "recommendation" AND "obstetric anal sphincter injury", OR "perineal laceration" OR "perineal tear" OR "perineal trauma" OR "vaginal tear". Twelve guidelines were included, in English and Spanish.The assessment of the guidelines was performed using AGREE II by 5 appraisers.Ten guidelines scored more than 50 %, and 3 of them scored higher than 70 %. Two guidelines scored <50 % and were considered as low quality. Level of evidence and grade of recommendations were used by 7 guidelines of the 12 guidelines. Although some guidelines received high scores, there is space for improvement of the standards of guidelines.

Pre- and postmenopausal women experience similar outcomes in relation to urinary symptoms following a short-term supervised PFMT.

BackgroundThe FIGO Working Group (FWG) in Pelvic Floor Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (2012–2015) established a consensus among international opinion leaders in evaluating current evidence and providing practice recommendations.ObjectivesTo provide an update of the previous clinical opinion report on conservative and surgical treatment of posterior compartment prolapse.Search strategySearch of evidence was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to August 2018.Selection criteriaControlled trials on posterior colporrhaphy, site‐specific defect, transanal, abdominal, laparoscopic, and mesh repair.Data collection and analysisCollective consensus on surgical outcomes was based on a decision‐making process during meetings and multiple group consultations.Main resultsBasic evaluation and conservative treatment precede surgical management. Surgical techniques are performed by vaginal, transperineal, transanal, abdominal, or laparoscopic approach. The transvaginal surgical route without mesh appears superior to the transanal route. No conclusions can be drawn based on clinical studies or randomized controlled trials of posterior colporrhaphy and laparoscopic rectopexy.ConclusionsManagement of rectocele should include patients’ history, quality of life questionnaires, and, in case of complex anorectal symptoms, imaging and functional studies. Evidence on the best type of posterior vaginal wall repair is still scarce. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the best approach to achieve safe, effective, and long‐term anatomical and functional outcomes.

Background: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated wide variations on outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in trials on surgical treatments for anterior, apical and mesh prolapse surgery. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in posterior compartment vaginal prolapse interventions is highly warranted in the process of developing core outcome sets. Objective: To evaluate outcome and outcome measures reporting in posterior prolapse surgical trials. Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Selection criteria: Randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse.Data collection and analysis: Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated.

Objective To systematically evaluate the content and quality of national and international guidelines on vaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods We searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from inception to March 2020 and organizations’ websites. The quality of the guidelines was assessed independently by six appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Results Five guidelines were included. Most guidelines recommended individualized treatments, clinical observation, and conservative treatment for asymptomatic women discouraging the use of mesh. Vaginal pessary and pelvic floor muscle training are unanimously considered effective treatments. Only two guidelines recommended weight loss. Each guideline recommended patient counseling supported by data on success rates and complications. Most guidelines highlighted the importance of a specialist experienced surgeon, multidisciplinary teams, and national/international registries. All guidelines highlighted potential benefits of the use of mesh and reported possible complications. The overall quality rating ranged between 4.2 and 6.3, suggestive of moderate to high quality. The highest mean score (92.5%) pertained to “Scope and Purpose” and “Clarity of Presentation”, and the lowest to “Editorial Independence” (18%). Three out of five guidelines were “strongly recommended” by the appraisers. Conclusion Although most guidelines were of moderate to high quality, methodological applicability, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence were domains with low scores.

Urethral prolapse is an uncommon clinical condition that is reported predominantly in children and postmenopausal women. We describe a case of a 39-year-old woman who presented at the emergency room with vaginal bleeding and pain related to Valsalva maneuver (lifting weight). She described several similar previous episodes, which started during her second pregnancy at 32 years of age. The episodes initially occurred every 6 months, but she did not seek medical assistance for 7 years, during which time symptoms became more frequent. She had no previous history of irradiation, pelvic infection, or urogenital surgery. During physical examination, a urethral prolapse was identified. Pelvic and urinary ultrasound (US) showed no other abnormality. The patient underwent cystourethroscopy and surgical excision of the urethral prolapse, with complete resolution of symptoms. Histopathology confirmed benign inflammatory urethral mucosa tissue with edema and vascular congestion.