Implantation of a synthetic midurethral sling (SMUS) is the most commonly performed anti-incontinence operation in women worldwide. The effectiveness of the SMUS is comparable to that of the historical gold standards--autologous fascial slings and the Burch colposuspension. Much controversy, however, has evolved regarding the safety of this type of sling. Overall, the quality of the studies with respect to assessing risks of SMUS-associated complications is currently poor. The most common risks in patients with SMUS include urethral obstruction requiring surgery (2.3% of patients with SMUS), vaginal, bladder and/or urethral erosion requiring surgery (1.8%) and refractory chronic pain (4.1%); these data likely represent the minimum risks. In addition, the failure rate of SMUS implantation surgery is probably at least 5% in patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Furthermore, at least one-third of patients undergoing sling excision surgery develop recurrent SUI. Considering the additional risks of refractory overactive bladder, fistulas and bowel perforations, among others, the overall risk of a negative outcome after SMUS implantation surgery is ≥15%.

In select women vaginal flap urethroplasty and buccal mucosal graft have high success rates, including 100% at 1 year and 78% at 5 years. Urethral dilation has a 6% success rate. Long-term followup is mandatory. Treatment should be individualized.

A comparative analysis of 4 diagnostic techniques suggests that TRUS alone has poor specificity for EDO evaluation. Incorporating dynamic tests into the algorithm of EDO diagnosis may decrease unnecessary duct resection procedures and improve the success of the resection procedures that are indicated.

No abstract

Success after the initial failure of mesh sling complications repair is possible but multiple surgeries may be required. Each symptom should be addressed separately.

There was little correlation between the number of pads used and the severity of urinary incontinence (r=0.26). These data suggest that pad count should not be used as an objective measure of incontinence severity. Instead, pad weight on a 24-hour pad test should be used.

In cases clinically suspicious for urethral diverticulum magnetic resonance imaging had a 24.4% error rate. Serious consequences are failure to detect cancer and suboptimal treatment for urethral diverticulum. The reason for the high magnetic resonance imaging accuracy rate in other series may be that in the absence of radiological confirmation some surgeons may choose not to perform surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging is useful to assess urethral diverticula but physicians should be aware of its limitations.

Objectives To compare the surgical outcomes of men with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) to those with detrusor underactivity (DU) or acontractile detrusor (DA).Materials and Methods This retrospective, IRB approved study included men who underwent BPO surgery for refractory LUTS or urinary retention. Patients were grouped based on videourodynamic (VUDS) findings: 1) men with BOO, 2) men with DU and 3) men with DA. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGII). Secondary outcome measures included uroflow (Qmax), post-void residual volume (PVR) and the need for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC).Results One hundred and nineteen patients were evaluated: 1) 34 with BOO, 2) 62 with DU and 3) 23 with DA. Subjective success rate (PGII) was highest in the BOO group (97%) and those with DU (98%), while DA patients had a PGII success of 26%, (p<0.0001). After surgery, patients with BOO had the lowest PVR (68.5mL). Fifty-six patients (47%) performed CIC pre-operatively (47% of BOO, 32% of DU and 87% of DA patients). None of the patients in the BOO and DU groups required CIC post operatively compared to16/23 (69%) of patients in the DA group (p<0.0001).Conclusions BPO surgery is a viable treatment option in men with presumed BOO and DU while DA is a poor prognostic sign in men who do not void spontaneously pre-operatively.