Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility

Christina Poon, Philippe E. Zimmern

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Ideally, the choice of surgery for stress urinary incontinence should be determined by the underlying pathophysiology. Generally, the diagnosis is refined to either urethral hypermobility (UHM) or intrinsic sphincteric dysfunction (ISD) based on history, questionnaires, physical exam, and various special tests including assessment of urethral mobility (Q-tip test or lateral cystogram), stress test, pad test, and video or nonvideo urodynamic studies. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard test or algorithm to allow diagnostic precision in every case, and the diagnosis is usually arrived at based on various combinations of the above investigations along with clinical acumen and experience. Nonetheless, the importance of arriving at the correct diagnosis lies in its role in determining the appropriate surgical intervention. Although this principle of practice has been challenged more and more in recent years (1,2), traditionally, UHM is treated with one of the bladder neck suspensions (BNSs) and ISD with one of the sling procedures, urethral bulking agents, or artificial urinary sphincter. For UHM, once the diagnosis is made, one must decide on the appropriate BNS, for which there exist two main types based on surgical approach: retropubic or transvaginal. Differences in efficacy aside, the decision to proceed with one approach or the other should be driven by any associated pathology requiring concomitant surgical repair. For example, if concomitant vaginal repair of a symptomatic rectocele is undertaken, then a transvaginal anti-incontinence procedure is appropriate. Conversely, if an abdominal hysterectomy is required, then a retropubic approach is logical.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationVaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse
PublisherSpringer London
Pages91-107
Number of pages17
ISBN (Print)1852339128, 9781852339128
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Stress Urinary Incontinence
Suspensions
Urinary Bladder
Artificial Urinary Sphincter
Rectocele
Suburethral Slings
Urodynamics
Hysterectomy
Exercise Test
History
Pathology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Poon, C., & Zimmern, P. E. (2006). Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility. In Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse (pp. 91-107). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-346-8_8

Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility. / Poon, Christina; Zimmern, Philippe E.

Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse. Springer London, 2006. p. 91-107.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Poon, C & Zimmern, PE 2006, Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility. in Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse. Springer London, pp. 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-346-8_8
Poon C, Zimmern PE. Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility. In Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse. Springer London. 2006. p. 91-107 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-346-8_8
Poon, Christina ; Zimmern, Philippe E. / Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility. Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse. Springer London, 2006. pp. 91-107
@inbook{621136e2583e46de8d9b58a7351c9455,
title = "Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility",
abstract = "Ideally, the choice of surgery for stress urinary incontinence should be determined by the underlying pathophysiology. Generally, the diagnosis is refined to either urethral hypermobility (UHM) or intrinsic sphincteric dysfunction (ISD) based on history, questionnaires, physical exam, and various special tests including assessment of urethral mobility (Q-tip test or lateral cystogram), stress test, pad test, and video or nonvideo urodynamic studies. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard test or algorithm to allow diagnostic precision in every case, and the diagnosis is usually arrived at based on various combinations of the above investigations along with clinical acumen and experience. Nonetheless, the importance of arriving at the correct diagnosis lies in its role in determining the appropriate surgical intervention. Although this principle of practice has been challenged more and more in recent years (1,2), traditionally, UHM is treated with one of the bladder neck suspensions (BNSs) and ISD with one of the sling procedures, urethral bulking agents, or artificial urinary sphincter. For UHM, once the diagnosis is made, one must decide on the appropriate BNS, for which there exist two main types based on surgical approach: retropubic or transvaginal. Differences in efficacy aside, the decision to proceed with one approach or the other should be driven by any associated pathology requiring concomitant surgical repair. For example, if concomitant vaginal repair of a symptomatic rectocele is undertaken, then a transvaginal anti-incontinence procedure is appropriate. Conversely, if an abdominal hysterectomy is required, then a retropubic approach is logical.",
author = "Christina Poon and Zimmern, {Philippe E.}",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1007/978-1-84628-346-8_8",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "1852339128",
pages = "91--107",
booktitle = "Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse",
publisher = "Springer London",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Transvaginal surgery for stress urinary incontinence owing to urethral hypermobility

AU - Poon, Christina

AU - Zimmern, Philippe E.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Ideally, the choice of surgery for stress urinary incontinence should be determined by the underlying pathophysiology. Generally, the diagnosis is refined to either urethral hypermobility (UHM) or intrinsic sphincteric dysfunction (ISD) based on history, questionnaires, physical exam, and various special tests including assessment of urethral mobility (Q-tip test or lateral cystogram), stress test, pad test, and video or nonvideo urodynamic studies. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard test or algorithm to allow diagnostic precision in every case, and the diagnosis is usually arrived at based on various combinations of the above investigations along with clinical acumen and experience. Nonetheless, the importance of arriving at the correct diagnosis lies in its role in determining the appropriate surgical intervention. Although this principle of practice has been challenged more and more in recent years (1,2), traditionally, UHM is treated with one of the bladder neck suspensions (BNSs) and ISD with one of the sling procedures, urethral bulking agents, or artificial urinary sphincter. For UHM, once the diagnosis is made, one must decide on the appropriate BNS, for which there exist two main types based on surgical approach: retropubic or transvaginal. Differences in efficacy aside, the decision to proceed with one approach or the other should be driven by any associated pathology requiring concomitant surgical repair. For example, if concomitant vaginal repair of a symptomatic rectocele is undertaken, then a transvaginal anti-incontinence procedure is appropriate. Conversely, if an abdominal hysterectomy is required, then a retropubic approach is logical.

AB - Ideally, the choice of surgery for stress urinary incontinence should be determined by the underlying pathophysiology. Generally, the diagnosis is refined to either urethral hypermobility (UHM) or intrinsic sphincteric dysfunction (ISD) based on history, questionnaires, physical exam, and various special tests including assessment of urethral mobility (Q-tip test or lateral cystogram), stress test, pad test, and video or nonvideo urodynamic studies. Unfortunately, there is no gold standard test or algorithm to allow diagnostic precision in every case, and the diagnosis is usually arrived at based on various combinations of the above investigations along with clinical acumen and experience. Nonetheless, the importance of arriving at the correct diagnosis lies in its role in determining the appropriate surgical intervention. Although this principle of practice has been challenged more and more in recent years (1,2), traditionally, UHM is treated with one of the bladder neck suspensions (BNSs) and ISD with one of the sling procedures, urethral bulking agents, or artificial urinary sphincter. For UHM, once the diagnosis is made, one must decide on the appropriate BNS, for which there exist two main types based on surgical approach: retropubic or transvaginal. Differences in efficacy aside, the decision to proceed with one approach or the other should be driven by any associated pathology requiring concomitant surgical repair. For example, if concomitant vaginal repair of a symptomatic rectocele is undertaken, then a transvaginal anti-incontinence procedure is appropriate. Conversely, if an abdominal hysterectomy is required, then a retropubic approach is logical.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892800340&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892800340&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-1-84628-346-8_8

DO - 10.1007/978-1-84628-346-8_8

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84892800340

SN - 1852339128

SN - 9781852339128

SP - 91

EP - 107

BT - Vaginal Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse

PB - Springer London

ER -