OBJECTIVE
To review the current literature and summarize the effect of obesity on outcomes of surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) as well as the effect of weight loss on PFD symptoms.
DATA SOURCES
Relevant sources were identified by a MEDLINE search from 1966 to 2007 (key words: obesity, pelvic floor disorders, urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse). References of relevant studies were hand searched.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Relevant human observational studies, randomized trials, and review articles were included. 246 articles were identified; 20 were used in reporting and analyzing the data. Meta-analyses were performed for topics meeting the appropriate criteria.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS
There is good evidence that surgery for stress urinary incontinence in obese women is as safe as in their non-obese counterparts, but cure rates may be lower in the obese patient. Meta-analysis revealed cure rates of 81% and 85% for the obese and non-obese groups, respectively [P < 0.001; OR: 0.576 (95% CI: 0.426 – 0.779)] Combined bladder perforation rates were 1.2% in the obese and 6.6% in the non-obese [P = 0.015; OR: 0.277 (95% CI: 0.098 – 0.782)]. There is little evidence on which to base clinical decisions regarding the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in obese women, as few comparative studies were identified addressing the outcomes of prolapse surgery in obese patients compared to normal-weight controls. Weight loss studies indicate that both bariatric and non-surgical weight loss lead to significant improvements in PFD symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Surgery for UI in obese women is safe, but more trials are needed to evaluate its long-term effectiveness as well as treatments for both FI and POP. Weight loss, both surgical and non-surgical, should be considered in the treatment of PFDs in the obese woman.