Quo Vadis Urogynecology 2020 – Innovative Treatment Concepts for Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Abstract

The current treatment for urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse includes a wide range of innovative options for conservative and surgical therapies. Initial treatment for pelvic floor dysfunction consists of individualized topical estrogen therapy and professional training in passive and active pelvic floor exercises with biofeedback, vibration plates, and a number of vaginal devices. The method of choice for the surgical repair of stress urinary incontinence consists of placement of a suburethral sling. A number of different methods are available for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse using either a vaginal or an abdominal/endoscopic approach and autologous tissue or alloplastic materials for reconstruction. This makes it possible to achieve optimal reconstruction both in younger women, many of them affected by postpartum trauma, and in older women later in their lives. Treatment includes assessing the patientʼs state of health and anesthetic risk profile. It is important to determine a realistically achievable patient preference after explaining the individualized concept and presenting the alternative surgical options.

Key words

stress incontinence - suburethral sling - pelvic organ prolapse - sacrocolpopexy - vaginal uterine fixation

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 29. Juli 2020

Angenommen: 01. November 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Februar 2021

• References/Literatur

• 1 Crean-Tate KK, Faubion SS, Pederson HJ. et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in female cancer patients: a focus on vaginal hormonal therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222: 103-113
• 2 Ford AA, Taylor V, Ogah J. et al. Midurethral slings for treatment of stress urinary incontinence review. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38: S70-S75
• 3 Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Finazzi Agrò E, Soligo M. et al. Long-term outcomes of TOT and TVT procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1119-1130
• 4 Kim A, Kim MS, Park YJ. et al. Clinical outcome of single-incision slings, excluding TVT-Secur, vs. standard slings in the surgical management of stress incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2019; 123: 566-584
• 5 Huebner M, Tunn R, Reisenauer C. et al. Surgical procedures for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in the light of the updated FDA-warning and its effects on practise patterns in Germany between 2010 and 2018. Abstract 63. EUGA 2020 Interactive Meeting 11. – 12.12.2020 Dublin.
• 6 Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson J, Ford A. et al. Burch colposuspension. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38: 553-562
• 7 Freites J, Stewart F, Omar MI. et al. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; (12) CD002239
• 8 Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Bogani G, Meschia M. et al. Urethral bulking agents versus other surgical procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 189: 48-54
• 9 Itkonen Freitas AM, Mentula M, Rahkola-Soisalo P. et al. Tension-Free Vaginal Tape Surgery versus Polyacrylamide Hydrogel Injection for Primary Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol 2020; 203: 372-378
• 10 Peyronnet B, OʼConnor E, Khavari R. et al. AMS-800 Artificial urinary sphincter in female patients with stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38 (Suppl. 04) S28-S41
• 11 Cui Y, Zhou X, Zong H. et al. The efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in treating idiopathic OAB: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 2015; 34: 413-419
• 12 Lozano-Ortega G, Walker D, Rogula B. et al. The Relative Efficacy and Safety of Mirabegron and OnabotulinumtoxinA in Patients With Overactive Bladder who Have Previously Been Managed With an Antimuscarinic: A Network Meta-analysis. Urology 2019; 127: 1-8
• 13 Tutolo M, Ammirati E, Heesakkers J. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Sacral and Percutaneous Tibial Neuromodulation in Non-neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction and Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 406-418
• 14 Coolen AWM, Bui BN, Dietz V. et al. The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1767-1783
• 15 Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL. et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA 2014; 311: 1023-1034 [published correction in JAMA 2015; 313: 2287]
• 16 Sutkin G, Zyczynski HM, Sridhar A. et al. Association between adjuvant posterior repair and success of native tissue apical suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222: 161.e1-161.e8
• 17 Neis KJ, Zubke W, Römer T. et al. Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76: 350-364
• 18 Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24: 1803-1813
• 19 Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J. et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ 2019; 366: l5149
• 20 Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK. et al. Uterine preservation vs. hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219: 129-146.e2
• 21 Baessler K, Aigmüller T, Albrich S. et al. Diagnosis and therapy of female pelvic organ prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e- Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76: 1287-1301
• 22 Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K. et al. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (02) CD012079
• 23 Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X. et al. Consensus Statement of the European Urology Association and the European Urogynaecological Association on the Use of Implanted Materials for Treating Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 424-431
• 24 Wong V, Shek KL, Goh J. et al. Cystocele recurrence after anterior colpor-rhaphy with and without mesh use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 172: 131-135
• 25 Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P. et al. Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J 2006; 17: 315-320
• 26 Naumann G, Hüsch T, Mörgeli C. et al. Mesh-augmented transvaginal repair of recurrent or complex anterior pelvic organ prolapse in accordance with SCENIHR-opinion. Int Urogynecol J 2020;
• 27 Wattiez A, Nasir R, Al Maamari B. et al. Laparoscopic prolapse surgery: types and evidence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016; 28: 430-434
• 28 Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R. et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. European Urol 2009; 55: 1089-1105
• 29 Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ. et al. Laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1469-1479
• 30 Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K. et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (04) CD004014
• 31 Noé KG, Schiermeier S, Alkatout I. et al. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with the new laparoscopic pectopexy-postoperative results and intermediate-term follow-up in a pilot study. J Endourol 2015; 29: 210-215
• 32 Rexhepi S, Rexhepi E, Stumm M. et al. Laparoscopic bilateral cervico-sacropexy and vaginosacropexy: new surgical treatment option in women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. J Endourol 2018; 32: 1058-1064
• 33 De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2016; 27: 355-366