BACKGROUND-Midurethral slings are increasingly used for the treatment of stress incontinence, but there are limited data comparing types of slings and associated complications.

BACKGROUND Urodynamic studies are commonly performed in women before surgery for stress urinary incontinence, but there is no good evidence that they improve outcomes. METHODS We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence to compare outcomes after preoperative office evaluation and urodynamic tests or evaluation only. The primary outcome was treatment success at 12 months, defined as a reduction in the score on the Urogenital Distress Inventory of 70% or more and a response of “much better” or “very much better” on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 11 percentage points. RESULTS A total of 630 women were randomly assigned to undergo office evaluation with urodynamic tests or evaluation only (315 per group); the proportion in whom treatment was successful was 76.9% in the urodynamic-testing group versus 77.2% in the evaluation-only group (difference, −0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −7.5 to 6.9), which was consistent with noninferiority. There were no significant between-group differences in secondary measures of incontinence severity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, rates of positive provocative stress tests, voiding dysfunction, or adverse events. Women who underwent urodynamic tests were significantly less likely to receive a diagnosis of overactive bladder and more likely to receive a diagnosis of voiding-phase dysfunction, but these changes did not lead to significant between-group differences in treatment selection or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS For women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence, preoperative office evaluation alone was not inferior to evaluation with urodynamic testing for outcomes at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00803959.)

Probability of mesh erosion at 7 years (estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method) was 10.5% (95% CI, 6.8% to 16.1%). Conclusions and Relevance During 7 years of follow-up, abdominal sacrocolpopexy failure rates increased in both groups. Urethropexy prevented SUI longer than no urethropexy. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy effectiveness should be balanced with longterm risks of mesh or suture erosion. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099372

The autologous fascial sling results in a higher rate of successful treatment of stress incontinence but also greater morbidity than the Burch colposuspension. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00064662 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .).

IMPORTANCE Over 300,000 surgeries are performed annually in the United States for pelvic organ prolapse. Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) are commonly performed transvaginal surgeries to correct apical prolapse. Little is known about their comparative efficacy and safety, and it is unknown whether perioperative behavioral therapy with pelvic floor muscle training (BPMT) improves outcomes of prolapse surgery. OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes between 1) SSLF and ULS and 2) perioperative BPMT and usual perioperative care in women undergoing surgery for vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Multi-center, 2×2 factorial randomized trial of 374 women undergoing surgery to treat both apical vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence was conducted between 2008 and 2013 at 9 U.S. medical centers. Two-year follow-up rate was 84.5%. INTERVENTIONS Surgical intervention: Transvaginal surgery including mid-urethral sling with randomization to SSLF (n = 186) or ULS (n=188); Behavioral intervention: Randomization to perioperative BPMT (n = 186) or usual care (n=188). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome for the surgical intervention (surgical success) was defined as: 1) no apical descent greater than one-third into vaginal canal or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen (anatomic success); 2) no bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms and 3) no retreatment for prolapse at 2 years. For the behavioral intervention, primary outcome at 6 months was urinary symptom scores (Urinary Distress Inventory; range 0–300, higher scores worse), and primary outcomes at 2 years were prolapse symptom scores (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory; range 0–300, higher scores worse) and anatomic success. RESULTS At 2 years, surgical group was not significantly associated with surgical success rates [ULS 59.2% (93/154) vs. SSLF 60.5% (92/152), OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.6, 1.5)] or serious adverse event rates [ULS 16.5% (31/188) vs. SSLF 16.7% (31/186), OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.5, 1.6)]. BPMT was not associated with greater improvements in urinary scores at 6 months [treatment difference −6.7 (95% CI −19.7, 6.2)], prolapse scores at 24 months [treatment difference −8.0 (95% CI −22.1, 6.1)] or anatomic success at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Two years after vaginal surgery for prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, neither ULS nor SSLF was significantly superior to the other for anatomic, functional, and or adverse event outcomes. Perioperative BPMT did not improve urinary symptoms at 6 months or prolapse outcomes at 2 years.

No abstract

Local injection of 200 U botulinum toxin A was an effective and durable treatment for refractory overactive bladder. However, a transient post-void residual urine increase was experienced in 43% of patients. Botulinum toxin A for idiopathic overactive bladder is still under investigation.

BACKGROUND Anticholinergic medications and onabotulinumtoxinA are used to treat urgency urinary incontinence, but data directly comparing the two types of therapy are needed. METHODS We performed a double-blind, double-placebo–controlled, randomized trial involving women with idiopathic urgency urinary incontinence who had five or more episodes of urgency urinary incontinence per 3-day period, as recorded in a diary. For a 6-month period, participants were randomly assigned to daily oral anticholinergic medication (solifenacin, 5 mg initially, with possible escalation to 10 mg and, if necessary, subsequent switch to trospium XR, 60 mg) plus one intradetrusor injection of saline or one intradetrusor injection of 100 U of onabotulinumtoxinA plus daily oral placebo. The primary outcome was the reduction from baseline in mean episodes of urgency urinary incontinence per day over the 6-month period, as recorded in 3-day diaries submitted monthly. Secondary outcomes included complete resolution of urgency urinary incontinence, quality of life, use of catheters, and adverse events. RESULTS Of 249 women who underwent randomization, 247 were treated, and 241 had data available for the primary outcome analyses. The mean reduction in episodes of urgency urinary incontinence per day over the course of 6 months, from a baseline average of 5.0 per day, was 3.4 in the anticholinergic group and 3.3 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (P = 0.81). Complete resolution of urgency urinary incontinence was reported by 13% and 27% of the women, respectively (P = 0.003). Quality of life improved in both groups, without significant between-group differences. The anticholinergic group had a higher rate of dry mouth (46% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) but lower rates of catheter use at 2 months (0% vs. 5%, P = 0.01) and urinary tract infections (13% vs. 33%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Oral anticholinergic therapy and onabotulinumtoxinA by injection were associated with similar reductions in the frequency of daily episodes of urgency urinary incontinence. The group receiving onabotulinumtoxinA was less likely to have dry mouth and more likely to have complete resolution of urgency urinary incontinence but had higher rates of transient urinary retention and urinary tract infections. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166438.)