Objective
The purpose of this study was to report the frequency of abnormal cystoscopy at incontinence surgery and to identify risk factors and sequelae of injury.
Study Design
Findings of cystoscopy were collected prospectively in 3 multicenter surgical trials. Clinical, demographic, and procedure characteristics and surgeon experience were analyzed for association with iatrogenic injury and noninjury abnormalities. Impact of abnormalities on continence outcomes and adverse events during 12 months after the procedure were assessed.
Results
Abnormal findings in the bladder or urethra were identified in 95 of 1830 women (5.2%). Most injuries (75.8%) were iatrogenic. Lower urinary tract (LUT) injury was most common at retropubic urethropexy and retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) procedures (6.4% each), followed by autologous pubovaginal sling procedures (1.7%) and transobturator MUS (0.4%). Increasing age (56.9 vs 51.9 years; P = .04), vaginal deliveries (3.2 vs 2.6; P = .04), and blood loss (393 vs 218 mL; P = .01) were associated with LUT injury during retropubic urethropexy; however, only age (62.9 vs 51.4 years; P = .02) and smoking history (P = .04) were associated for pubovaginal sling procedures. No factors correlated with increased risk of injury at retropubic and transobturator MUS. Notably, previous incontinence surgery, concomitant procedures, anesthesia type, and trainee participation did not increase LUT injury frequency. Although discharge with an indwelling catheter was more common after trocar perforation compared with the noninjury group (55.6% vs 18.5%; P < .001), they did not differ in overall success, voiding dysfunction, recurrent urinary tract infections, or urge urinary incontinence.
Conclusion
Universal cystoscopy at incontinence surgery detects abnormalities in 1 in 20 women. Urinary trocar perforations that are addressed intraoperatively have no long-term adverse sequelae.
Key words
Cystoscopy is often performed at the time of incontinence surgery to identify lower urinary tract (LUT) injury. Confirmatory cystoscopy that assures patient safety is easy to perform, low risk, and very effective in diagnosing these injuries. The reported rates of LUT injury during incontinence procedures range from 0–7%, depending on the procedure.
1
, 2
, 3
, 4
, 5
, 6
Previously published rates are calculated predominantly from systematic reviews, review of the literature, and retrospective chart review. These calculations may underestimate the risk. One large prospective trial of 1136 women who underwent midurethral sling showed a bladder trocar injury rate of 3%.7
In this study, the rates of incidentally identified bladder disease or other LUT injuries were not reported. Incidental findings of bladder cancer or foreign bodies during cystoscopy at the time of midurethral sling have been described elsewhere.8
, 9
The Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial (SISTEr), Trial Of Mid-Urethral Slings (TOMUS), and Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) randomized clinical trials of surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI)
10
, 11
, 12
cumulatively provide a database of intraoperative findings and postoperative functional outcomes from >1800 women, all of whom had intraoperative cystoscopy routinely performed at their incontinence and concurrent gynecologic procedures. The goal of this secondary analysis was to report the frequency of LUT injury and other nontrauma-related disease of the urethra and bladder that have been recognized in women who undergo SUI surgery. Additionally, we sought to identify patient, procedure, and surgeon characteristics that are associated with these abnormalities. Last, using the available 12- and 24-month postoperative outcome and adverse event data, we sought to estimate the false-negative rate of intraoperative cystoscopy and the sequelae of urinary trocar injuries during midurethral sling procedures.Methods
This is a secondary analysis of several surgical trials that have been conducted by the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. The methods, demographic details of the study populations, and outcomes of these trials have been published separately.
10
, 11
, 12
In the SISTEr, TOMUS, and ValUE trials, all subjects underwent cystoscopy at the time of their index SUI surgery according to standardized protocols. The objective of cystoscopy was to survey the bladder and urethra for injury or foreign body and the ureters for patency. All subjects were women with bothersome and objectively demonstrable SUI. Although SUI was demonstrated clinically, the women were not required to have urodynamic stress incontinence to be included in the trials. Other exclusion criteria in the 3 protocols included current urinary tract infection, a history of pelvic irradiation, urethral diverticulum, and a history of LUT cancer or neurologic conditions that impact bladder function. Subjects with hematuria (gross or microscopic) were not excluded, although they were required to have clinical evaluation before inclusion in the trials. The components of the hematuria work-up were driven clinically and not specified by protocol.At the time of incontinence surgery, details about 2 kinds of cystoscopic findings were collected prospectively: LUT injury and bladder/urethral anatomy and disease. More specifically, we collected details about cystotomy (incidental or intentional); bladder perforation with needles, sutures or trocars; intravesical or intraurethral suture or mesh placement, and ureteral obstruction. In the SISTEr and ValUE trials, noninjury abnormalities were described as an open-ended response by the investigator surgeons. In the TOMUS trial, surgeons were asked to specify the location of the bladder trocar perforation as lateral, at the dome, or trigone and whether the perforations required additional management beyond trocar removal and replacement.
We collected information about patient and procedure-related factors, which included trainee involvement and concurrent procedures, that were associated with cystoscopically recognized LUT injury. Each protocol specified what level of trainee could participate in the continence procedure. In SISTEr, a resident, fellow or co-surgeon could participate; in TOMUS and ValUE, trainee participation was restricted to fellows. The study surgery and cystoscopy were performed or directly supervised by surgeon investigators who were urogynecologists or urologists. Management of LUT injury inclusive of the duration of indwelling Foley catheter use was not standardized across studies or clinical sites. Our secondary analysis reports on women and their clinical outcomes over the first year after their index SUI surgery.
Descriptive statistics were reported as the number and percent or the mean and standard deviation. Continuous variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon 2-sample tests. Categoric variables were analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Clinical and demographic factors considered were age, body mass index, parity, number of vaginal deliveries, hormone therapy/menopausal status, smoking status, stage of prolapse, urge index of the Medical, Epidemiological, and Social aspects of Aging questionnaire, any previous urinary incontinence surgeries, number of previous incontinence surgeries, previous Burch procedure, previous sling, previous cesarean delivery, type of anesthesia, estimated blood loss, concomitant surgery, and surgeon experience. All analyses were performed with SAS statistical software (version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Probability values < .05 were considered statistically significant. Each participating site of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network obtained institutional review board approval for the implementation of the SISTEr, TOMUS and ValUE clinical trials; all enrolled subjects provided written consent.
Results
Cystoscopy was performed in 1830 SISTEr, TOMUS, and ValUE participants. Of these, 95 women (5.2%) had abnormal findings in the bladder or urethra. Iatrogenic injury accounted for most of the abnormalities (72; 75.8%), although noninjury findings were noted in the remaining 23 women (Table 1). When women from all 3 trials were grouped by the type of antiincontinence procedure, LUT injury was identified most often at Burch retropubic urethropexy and retropubic midurethral sling procedures (6.4% each) and less often at autologous pubovaginal sling procedures (1.7%) and transobturator midurethral sling procedures (0.4%).
Table 1Distribution of patients with abnormal cystoscopic exams by surgery type
| Variable | Abnormal cystoscopy because of injury (n = 72) | Abnormal cystoscopy not because of injury (n = 23) | Total subjects undergoing antiincontinence procedure, n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autologous pubovaginal sling | 6 | 6 | 347 |
| Burch retropubic urethropexy | 21 | 3 | 329 |
| Retropubic midurethral sling | 43 | 10 | 676 |
| Transobturator midurethral sling | 2 | 4 | 460 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| Total | 1830 |
Zyczynski. Findings and sequelae of cystoscopy at incontinence surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014.
a Includes “mini-sling” midurethral sling (n = 10), allogenic pubovaginal sling (n = 2), other retropubic urethropexy (n = 2), and periurethral bulking injection (n = 4).
We examined select patient and procedure characteristics as well as surgeon trainee involvement to identify factors that were associated with abnormal cystoscopy. Data for women with LUT injury were compared with data for all other women who underwent the same procedure (ie, abnormal cystoscopy not because of injury and those with normal cystoscopy). Results from univariate analyses are reported in Table 2. Of those women who underwent a Burch retropubic urethropexy, older age women, those who experienced a greater number of vaginal deliveries, and greater intraoperative blood loss were more likely to have LUT injury; increasing body mass index approached significance. Former smokers and older women were at increased risk for LUT injury among those who underwent an autologous pubovaginal sling procedure. We found no demographic or intraoperative factors that correlated with increased risk of LUT injury among women who underwent trocar-based retropubic and transobturator midurethral sling procedures. Previous SUI surgery, concomitant surgery for prolapse or other gynecologic indications, type of anesthesia, and trainee participation were not associated significantly with bladder or urethral injury for any of these 4 procedures. Trocar perforations were recognized in the bladder of 14 TOMUS subjects: 11 perforations were seen laterally, and 4 perforations were at the dome (1 patient sustained 2 trocar perforations). There were no perforations at the trigone. These were all managed exclusively by removal and replacement of the trocar. In both instances of urethral perforation, surgeons removed and replaced the trocar; additionally, they reported imbricating the urethral defect.
Table 2Comparison of patients with and without lower urinary tract injury diagnosed by cystoscopy during incontinence procedures
| Characteristic | Autologous pubovaginal sling | Retropubic urethropexy | Retropubic midurethral sling | Transobturator midurethral sling | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injured (n = 6) | Uninjured (n = 341) | P value | Injured (n = 21) | Uninjured (n = 308) | P value | Injured (n = 43) | Uninjured (n = 633) | P value | Injured (n = 2) | Uninjured (n = 458) | P value | |
| Age, y | 62.9 ± 12.0 | 51.4 ± 9.9 | .02 | 56.9 ± 10.3 | 51.9 ± 10.5 | .04 | 52.8 ± 11.6 | 52.0 ± 10.5 | .55 | 54.0 ± 6.0 | 52.2 ± 10.8 | .66 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 26.5 ± 4.6 | 30.3 ± 6.1 | .13 | 32.2 ± 7.3 | 29.6 ± 6.0 | .06 | 28.6 ± 6.5 | 29.7 ± 6.5 | .18 | 27.7 ± 4.9 | 29.8 ± 6.2 | .65 |
| Parity, n | 2.7 ± 1.8 | 3.3 ± 1.7 | .42 | 3.6 ± 1.4 | 3.3 ± 1.8 | .23 | 3.0 ± 1.8 | 2.9 ± 1.6 | .86 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 3.1 ± 1.7 | .59 |
| Vaginal deliveries, n | 2.2 ± 1.3 | 2.5 ± 1.5 | .60 | 3.1 ± 1.0 | 2.6 ± 1.6 | .04 | 2.3 ± 1.2 | 2.1 ± 1.3 | .24 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 2.3 ± 1.4 | .71 |
| Hormone therapy/ menopausal status, n (%) | ||||||||||||
| No | 4 (66.7) | 112 (33.5) | .17 | 8 (38.1) | 109 (35.4) | .26 | 11 (32.4) | 117 (24.1) | .52 | 1 (50.0) | 115 (29.8) | > .99 |
| Yes | 2 (33.3) | 111 (33.2) | 10 (47.6) | 107 (34.7) | 10 (29.4) | 145 (29.8) | 0 | 110 (28.5) | ||||
| Premenopausal | 0 | 111 (33.2) | 3 (14.3) | 92 (29.9) | 13 (38.2) | 224 (46.1) | 1 (50.0) | 161 (41.7) | ||||
| Smoking status, n (%) | ||||||||||||
| Never | 1 (16.7) | 173 (50.7) | .04 | 15 (71.4) | 179 (58.1) | .19 | 26 (60.5) | 367 (58.0) | .54 | 2 (100) | 269 (58.7) | .64 |
| Former | 5 (83.3) | 112 (32.8) | 6 (28.6) | 90 (29.2) | 14 (32.5) | 183 (28.9) | 0 | 140 (30.6) | ||||
| Current | 0 | 56 (16.4) | 0 | 39 (12.7) | 3 (7.0) | 83 (13.1) | 0 | 49 (10.7) | ||||
| Stage of prolapse, n (%) | ||||||||||||
| Stage 0 & 1 | 1 (20.0) | 75 (23.4) | > .99 | 10 (47.6) | 75 (24.3) | .06 | 7 (46.7) | 123 (43.5) | .13 | 1 (100) | 136 (45.6) | .54 |
| Stage 2 | 3 (60.0) | 189 (59.1) | 10 (47.6) | 185 (60.1) | 5 (33.3) | 139 (49.1) | 0 | 138 (46.3) | ||||
| Stage 3 & 4 | 1 (20.0) | 56 (17.5) | 1 (4.8) | 48 (15.6) | 3 (20.0) | 21 (7.4) | 0 | 24 (8.1) | ||||
| Medical, Epidemiological, and Social aspects of Aging questionnaire urge index at baseline, % | 33.2 ± 30.7 | 35.4 ± 21.8 | .80 | 42.8 ± 19.9 | 36.1 ± 21.8 | .11 | 34.7 ± 25.0 | 33.0 ± 21.5 | .86 | 27.5 ± 7.8 | 34.2 ± 22.2 | .71 |
| Any urinary incontinence surgery, n (%) | 1 (20.0) | 42 (13.1) | .51 | 6 (28.6) | 44 (14.3) | .11 | 3 (20.0) | 35 (12.4) | .42 | 0 | 41 (13.8) | > .99 |
| Previous urinary incontinence surgery, n (%) | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 (100.0) | 35 (83.3) | > .99 | 6 (100.0) | 33 (75.0) | .67 | 3 (100.0) | 28 (80.0) | > .99 | 0 | 33 (80.5) | Not available |
| 2 | 0 | 6 (14.3) | 0 | 9 (20.4) | 0 | 5 (14.3) | 0 | 8 (19.5) | ||||
| 3 | 0 | 1 (2.4) | 0 | 2 (4.6) | 0 | 1 (2.9) | — | — | ||||
| 4 | — | — | — | — | 0 | 1 (2.9) | — | — | ||||
| Previous Burch, n (%) | 0 | 4 (1.2) | > .99 | 0 | 1 (0.3) | > .99 | 2 (13.3) | 7 (2.5) | .07 | 0 | 7 (2.3) | > .99 |
| Previous sling, n (%) | 1 (20.0) | 6 (1.9) | .10 | 0 | 8 (2.6) | > .99 | 1 (6.7) | 8 (2.8) | .38 | 0 | 6 (2.0) | > .99 |
| Previous cesarean delivery, n (%) | 0 | 40 (11.7) | > .99 | 0 | 33 (10.7) | .25 | 7 (16.3) | 83 (13.1) | .49 | 0 | 69 (15.0) | > .99 |
| Anesthesia, n (%) | ||||||||||||
| General | 3 (60.0) | 251 (78.4) | .30 | 16 (76.2) | 261 (84.7) | .35 | 12 (80.0) | 202 (71.4) | .57 | 1 (100) | 212 (71.1) | > .99 |
| Spinal/epidural | 2 (40.0) | 79 (24.7) | .60 | 7 (33.3) | 55 (17.9) | .09 | 1 (6.7) | 17 (6.0) | > .99 | 0 | 19 (6.4) | > .99 |
| Sedation/local | — | — | — | — | 3 (4.5) | 64 (95.5) | > .99 | 0 | 69 (23.2) | > .99 | ||
| Estimated blood loss, mL | 175 ± 185 | 239 ± 319 | .44 | 393 ± 521 | 218 ± 317 | .01 | 87 ± 100 | 76 ± 118 | .43 | 200 ± – | 67 ± 124 | .13 |
| Concomitant surgery, n (%) | 2 (33.3) | 197 (57.8) | .41 | 9 (42.9) | 175 (56.8) | .26 | 8 (18.6) | 133 (21.0) | .85 | 0 | 98 (21.4) | > .99 |
| Surgeon experience fellow assistance, n (%) | 3 (50.0) | 132 (38.7) | .68 | 6 (28.6) | 110 (35.7) | .64 | 26 (60.5) | 461 (72.8) | .11 | 0 | 304 (66.4) | .11 |
Zyczynski. Findings and sequelae of cystoscopy at incontinence surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014.
a Data are presented as mean ± SD
b The numbers of patients who had any urinary incontinence surgery were used as the denominator
c Primary anesthesia type as reported by the surgeon; only midurethral sling procedures were performed under local sedation
d Data were available for only 1 of the 2 subjects; therefore, a standard deviation could not be computed.
Noninjury bladder abnormalities were identified by cystoscopy in 23 of 1830 women, of which 17 abnormalities were detailed for SISTEr and ValUE participants. These included urothelial abnormalities (n = 8), inflammation, atypical vessels, bleeding glomerulations (n = 5), polyp (n = 1), duplicated right ureteral orifice (n = 2), and carcinoma in situ (n = 1). There were no foreign bodies or invasive cancers identified. When demographic and perioperative factors were compared in women with noninjury abnormalities to all other women (those with normal cystoscopy and those with findings of iatrogenic injury), only a history of cesarean delivery was found to have a significant association. Eight of 23 women (34.8%) with abnormal cystoscopy had a previous cesarean delivery compared with 230 of 1807 women (12.7%) with normal cystoscopy (P = .01).
We investigated all postprocedural adverse events from each trial, screening for those that plausibly could be attributable to a missed diagnosis of injury at the time of surgery. The adverse events were reported up to 12 (ValUE) and 24 months (SISTEr and TOMUS) after the operation. In those respective intervals, there were no reported cases of urinary tract fistulas, foreign bodies (suture, mesh, or stone) in the bladder, hydronephrosis, renal failure, or malignancies.
The ValUE and TOMUS protocols did not specify voiding management after trocar perforation. Trocar injuries were identified in 16 TOMUS participants and 29 ValUE participants. Table 3 shows the type and frequency of bladder management strategies at discharge that were used by the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network study surgeons in both trials. Compared with those women with normal cystoscopy, the women found to have urinary trocar perforations were significantly more likely to be discharged with an indwelling Foley catheter (55.6% vs 18.5%, respectively; P < .001). Of the 16 participants with urinary trocar perforations (14 bladder, 2 urethra) in TOMUS, 5 women (32.25%) underwent voiding trials at discharge. All 5 women passed and were discharged voiding spontaneously. When compared with those women without urinary trocar injury, the women with injury were as likely to pass their voiding trials (75.7% vs 100%, respectively; P = .34).
Table 3Type of voiding management at discharge for women with and without trocar injuries in the TOMUS and ValUE studies
| Trocar injury | Type of voiding management at discharge, n (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urethral catheter | CISC | Self-voiding | Total | |
| No | 199 (18.5) | 61 (5.7) | 817 (75.9) | 1077 |
| Yes | 25 (55.6) | 3 (6.7) | 17 (37.8) | 45 |
| Total | 224 | 64 | 834 | 1122 |
Probability value to compare the overall difference: < .001
CISC, Clean Intermittent Self-Catheterization; TOMUS, Trial Of Mid-Urethral Slings; ValUE, Value of Urodynamic Evaluation.
Zyczynski. Findings and sequelae of cystoscopy at incontinence surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014.
Sequelae of urinary trocar perforations were investigated by a comparison of the postoperative functional outcomes with those outcomes of women with normal cystoscopy in the ValUE and TOMUS trials. There were no statistically significant differences in overall success between the women with recognized trocar perforations vs those with normal cystoscopy, TOMUS (6 women [40.0%] vs 296 women [54.4%]), ValUE (22 women [78.6%] vs 358 women [79.2%]), in voiding dysfunction (4 women [9.3%] vs 53 women [5.2%], in recurrent urinary tract infections (defined as ≥3) during the first 12 months after surgery (0 vs 18 women [1.7%]), or in symptoms of persistent or de novo urgency urinary incontinence (15 women [34.9%] vs 332 women [33.0%], respectively).
Discussion
The general tenets regarding LUT injury at the time of stress incontinence surgery are prevention, recognition, treatment (if needed), and postoperative care tailored to the injury. Optimal surgical technique is the key for prevention of LUT injury; however, variations in patient anatomy or previous surgery can predispose a patient to an iatrogenic injury. Knowledge of patient risk factors for iatrogenic bladder injury can alert the surgeon to this risk. Compared with detected and appropriately managed injuries, unrecognized injuries are associated with increased morbidity. Therefore, intraoperative detection with universal safety cystoscopy at the time of sling procedures is considered to be a standard safety measure.
13
We found that the rate of iatrogenic bladder injury varied by choice of SUI procedure; the highest rate of 6.4% was for both retropubic midurethral sling procedures and Burch urethropexies. The autologous sling (1.7%) and transobturator midurethral sling (0.4%) had lower rates of cystoscopically detected iatrogenic injury, but none of these procedures were entirely free from the risk of injury. In addition, we found limited utility in preoperative prediction to triage “routine” vs “selective” cystoscopy. Thus, it seems reasonable to provide the same safety measures to all women who are at risk, that is, who undergo SUI surgery. Stav et al
7
reported that surgeon inexperience was associated with iatrogenic bladder injury, but we found that trainee participation did not significantly increase iatrogenic injury for any of the 4 procedures. A much larger sample size that randomly assigned trainee participation would be needed to increase the certainty of this finding.Our finding that older women were at increased risk for intraoperative injury, especially during fascial sling procedures, deserves further consideration, because it is not intuitive that age alone would increase injury rates. It is certainly possible that age is a biologic proxy for some unmeasured intraoperative or demographic variable, such as tissue integrity or scarring from previous surgery.
An important finding is that iatrogenic bladder injury with a trocar, when immediately identified with intraoperative cystoscopy, was not associated with a difference in surgical outcome. Clinicians and patients can be reassured that a bladder perforation by trocar is not likely to influence continence outcomes or to increase the risk for de novo or worsening urgency symptoms, for voiding dysfunction or postoperative recurrent urinary tract infections despite repeated intraoperative cystoscopy, or for subsequent management with longer catheterization. Further studies would need to confirm the reassuring finding that, when given the opportunity, women with trocar injury are as likely to pass a voiding trial and be discharged voiding spontaneously.
This analysis contains the largest number of randomized trial participants to undergo stress incontinence surgery and routine intraoperative cystoscopy, with classification of adverse events with the use of a validated tool. Despite the size of this sample, the specific numbers of unique noninjury findings do not permit further analysis, thus limiting our ability to comment on predictors or risk factors for such abnormalities. We cannot comment on the sequelae of “missed” abnormalities because we did not intentionally “miss” any abnormalities, which is in keeping with the highest ethical standards of human subject research and patient care.
Based on the important findings of this analysis, we conclude that there is a minimum rate of abnormal cystoscopy regardless of stress incontinence procedure type or iatrogenic LUT injury. We observed that approximately 1 in 100 women will have a noninjury abnormality detected in the bladder at the time of surgical cystoscopy. It seems prudent to survey the bladder at the time of SUI surgery because these lesions may cause urgency and/or urgency incontinence that could be attributed to the surgical intervention. When these noniatrogenic findings are combined with the iatrogenic abnormalities (4%), there is strong rationale for routine cystoscopy as a safety measure.
The American Urological Association panel consensus suggests cystoscopy after sling surgery,
13
and we suggest that women who have any SUI surgery have cystoscopy at the time of their index surgery. Surgeons will detect an abnormality in approximately 1 in 20 women, which includes noninjury- and injury-related abnormalities. Given the safety and efficiency of intraoperative cystoscopy, it is prudent to provide this safeguard to all patients.Appendix
SISTEr
Steering Committee
William Steers, MD, Chair (University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA); Ananias Diokno, MD, Veronica Mallett, MD (William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI and Oakwood Hospital, Dearborn MI; U01 DK58231); Linda Brubaker, MD, MaryPat FitzGerald, MD, (Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL; U01 DK60379); Holly E. Richter, PhD, MD, L. Keith Lloyd, MD, (University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; U01 DK60380); Michael Albo, MD, Charles Nager, MD, (University of California, San Diego, CA; U01 DK60401); Toby C. Chai, MD, Harry W. Johnson, MD, (University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; U01 DK60397); Halina M. Zyczynski, MD, Wendy Leng, MD (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; U01 DK 58225); Philippe Zimmern, MD, Gary Lemack, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; U01 DK60395); Stephen Kraus, MD, Thomas Rozanski, MD (University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX; U01 DK58234); Peggy Norton, MD, David Lesser, MD; (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; U01 DK60393); Sharon Tennstedt, PhD, Anne Stoddard, ScD (New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA; U01 DK58229); Debuene Chang, MD, John W. Kusek, PhD, Leroy M. Nyberg, MD, PhD (National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases); Anne M. Weber, MD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development).
Co-investigators
Rowell S. Ashford II, MD; Jan Baker, APRN; Diane Borello-France, PT, PhD; Kathryn L. Burgio, PhD; Seine Chiang, MD; Ash Dabbous, MD; Patricia S. Goode, MD; Lee N. Hammontree, MD; Kimberly Kenton, MD; Salil Khandwala, MD; Karl Luber, MD; Emily Lukacz, MD; Shawn Menefee, MD; Pamela Moalli, MD; Kenneth Peters, MD; Elizabeth Sagan, MD; Joseph Schaffer, MD; Amanda Simsiman, MD; Larry Sirls, MD; Robert Starr, MD; R. Edward Varner, MD.
Study Coordinators
Rosemary Bradt, RNC; Julie E. Burge, BS; Karen Debes, RN; Rosanna Dinh, RN, CCRC; Judy Gruss, RN; Lynn Hall, RN, MSN, CURN; Alice Howell, RN, BSN, CCRC; Kathy Jesse, RN; D. Lynn Kalinoski, PhD; Kathryn Koches, RN; Barbara Leemon, RN; Karen Mislanovich, RN; Elva Kelly Moore, RN; Shelly O’Meara, RN; Janese Parent, RN; Norma Pope, RN; Caren Prather, RN; Terry Rogers, RN; Sylvia Sluder, CCRP; Mary Tulke, RN.
Biostatistical Coordinating Center
Kimberly J. Dandreo, MSc; Corinne J. Leifer, BA; Susan M. McDermott, MPH, GNP; Anne Stoddard, ScD (Co-PI); Sharon Tennstedt, PhD (PI); Liane Tinsley, MPH; Lisa Wruck, ScD; Yan Xu, MS.
Data Safety and Monitoring Board
E. Ann Gormley MD (Chair), Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon NH; Paul Abrams MD, Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol UK; Diedre Bland MD, Blue Ridge Medical Associates, Winston Salem NC; J. Quentin Clemens MD, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago IL; John Connett PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN; William Henderson PhD, University of Colorado, Aurora CO; Dee Fenner MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI; Sheryl Kelsey PhD, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA; Deborah Myers MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence RI; Jacek Mostwin MD, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore MD; Bassem Wadie MBBCh, MSc, MD, Mansoura Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura, Egypt.
TOMUS
Steering Committee
E. Ann Gormley, Chair (Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH); Larry Sirls, MD, Salil Khandwala, MD (William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI and Oakwood Hospital, Dearborn, MI; U01 DK58231); Linda Brubaker, MD, Kimberly Kenton, MD (Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; U01 DK60379); Holly E. Richter, PhD, MD, L. Keith Lloyd, MD (University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; U01 DK60380); Michael Albo, MD, Charles Nager, MD (University of California, San Diego, CA; U01 DK60401); Toby C. Chai, MD, Harry W. Johnson, MD (University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; U01 DK60397); Halina M. Zyczynski, MD, Wendy Leng, MD (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; U01 DK58225); Philippe Zimmern, MD, Gary Lemack, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; U01 DK60395); Stephen Kraus, MD, Thomas Rozanski, MD (University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX; U01 DK58234); Peggy Norton, MD, Ingrid Nygaard, MD (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; U01 DK60393); Sharon Tennstedt, PhD, Anne Stoddard, ScD (New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA; U01 DK58229); Debuene Chang, MD (until 10/2009), John Kusek, PhD (starting 10/2009) (National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases).
Co-investigators
Amy Arisco, MD; Jan Baker, APRN; Diane Borello-France, PT, PhD; Kathryn L. Burgio, PhD; Ananias Diokno, MD; MaryPat Fitzgerald, MD; Chiara Ghetti, MD; Patricia S. Goode, MD; Robert L. Holley, MD; Yvonne Hsu, MD; Margie Kahn, MD; Jerry Lowder, MD; Karl Luber, MD; Emily Lukacz, MD; Alayne Markland, DO, MSc; Shawn Menefee, MD; Pamela Moalli, MD; Elizabeth Mueller, MD; Leslie Rickey, MD, MPH; Elizabeth Sagan, MD; Joseph Schaffer, MD; Robert Starr, MD; Gary Sutkin, MD; R. Edward Varner, MD; Emily Whitcomb, MD.
Study Coordinators
Julie E. Burge, BS; Laura Burr, RN; JoAnn Columbo, BS, CCRC; Tamara Dickinson, RN, CURN, CCCN, BCIA-PMDB; Rosanna Dinh, RN, CCRC; Judy Gruss, RN; Alice Howell, RN, BSN, CCRC; Chaandini Jayachandran, MSc; Kathy Jesse, RN; D. Lynn Kalinoski, PhD; Barbara Leemon, RN; Karen Mislanovich, RN; Elva Kelly Moore, RN; Caren Prather, RN; Jennifer Tabaldo; Tia Thrasher; Mary Tulke, RN; Robin Willingham, RN, BSN; Kimberly Woodson, RN, MPH; Gisselle Zazueta-Damian.
Data Coordinating Center
Kathleen Cannon, BS; Kimberly J. Dandreo, MSc; Liyuan Huang, MS; Rose Kowalski, MA; Heather Litman, PhD; Marina Mihova, MHA; Anne Stoddard, ScD (Co-PI); Kerry Tanwar, BA; Sharon Tennstedt, PhD (PI); Yan Xu, MS.
Data Safety And Monitoring Board
J. Quentin Clemens MD, (Chair) Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago IL; Paul Abrams MD, Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol UK; Deidre Bland MD, Blue Ridge Medical Associates, Winston Salem NC; Timothy B. Boone, MD, The Methodist Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; John Connett PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN; Dee Fenner MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI; William Henderson PhD, University of Colorado, Aurora CO; Sheryl Kelsey PhD, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA; Deborah J. Lightner, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Deborah Myers MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence RI; Bassem Wadie MBBCh, MSc, MD, Mansoura Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura, Egypt; J. Christian Winters, MD, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA.
ValUE
Steering Committee
E. Ann Gormley, Chair (Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH); Larry Sirls, MD, Salil Khandwala, MD (William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI and Oakwood Hospital, Dearborn, MI; U01 DK58231); Linda Brubaker, MD, Kimberly Kenton, MD (Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; U01 DK60379); Holly E. Richter, PhD, MD, L. Keith Lloyd, MD; (University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; U01 DK60380); Michael Albo, MD, Charles Nager, MD (University of California, San Diego, CA; U01 DK60401); Toby C. Chai, MD, Leslie Rickey, MD (University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; U01 DK60397); Halina M. Zyczynski, MD, Wendy Leng, MD (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; U01 DK58225); Philippe Zimmern, MD, Gary Lemack, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; U01 DK60395); Stephen Kraus, MD, Amy Arisco, MD (University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX; U01 DK58234); Peggy Norton, MD, Ingrid Nygaard, MD (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; U01 DK60393); Sharon Tennstedt, PhD, Anne Stoddard, ScD (New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA; U01 DK58229); Debuene Chang, MD (until 10/2009), John Kusek, PhD (starting 10/2009) (National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases).
Affiliated Sites
Cindy Amundsen, MD (Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC); Matthew Barber, MD (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH); Cheryl Iglesia, MD (Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC); Lily Arya, MD (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA); Alexander Gomelsky, MD (Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA).
Co-investigators
Kathryn L. Burgio, PhD; Melissa Fischer MD; MaryPat Fitzgerald, MD; Chiara Ghetti, MD; Patricia S. Goode, MD; Robert L. Holley, MD; Yvonne Hsu, MD; Margie Kahn, MD; Jerry Lowder, MD; Karl Luber, MD; Emily Lukacz, MD; Alayne Markland, DO, MSc; Shawn Menefee, MD; Pamela Moalli, MD; Elizabeth Mueller, MD; Pradeep Nagaraju MD; Kenneth Peters, MD; Thomas Rozanski, MD; Joseph Schaffer, MD; Gary Sutkin, MD; R. Edward Varner, MD; Emily Whitcomb, MD; Tracey S. Wilson, MD.
Study Coordinators
Julie E. Burge, BS; Laura Burr, RN; JoAnn Columbo, BS, CCRC; Tamara Dickinson, RN, CURN, CCCN, BCIA-PMDB; Rosanna Dinh, RN, CCRC; Judy Gruss, RN; Alice Howell, RN, BSN, CCRC; Chaandini Jayachandran, MSc; Kathy Jesse, RN; Michelle Kinglee; Barbara Leemon, RN; Jean Maynor, RN; Karen Mislanovich, RN; Jennifer Moran, RN; Doni Murphy, RN, MSN; Joanna Peterson, RN, BSN, MA; Caren Prather, RN; Mary Raynor, RN, BSN; Elle Rich, RN, BSN, MPH; Jennifer Tabaldo; Tia Thrasher; Mary Tulke, RN; Ryan Wilkerson, BS, CCRP; Robin Willingham, RN, BSN; Kimberly Woodson, RN, MPH; Gisselle Zazueta-Damian.
Data Coordinating Center
Kimberly J. Dandreo, MSc; Liyuan Huang, MS; Rose Kowalski, MA; Heather Litman, PhD; Marina Mihova, MHA; Chad Morin, BA; Anne Stoddard, ScD (Co-PI); Kerry Tanwar, MPH; Sharon Tennstedt, PhD (PI); Yan Xu, MS.
Data Safety And Monitoring Board
J. Quentin Clemens, MD, (Chair) University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI; Paul Abrams, MD, Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol UK; Deidre Bland, MD, Blue Ridge Medical Associates, Winston Salem NC; Timothy B. Boone, MD, The Methodist Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; John Connett, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN; Dee Fenner, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI; William Henderson, PhD, University of Colorado, Aurora CO; Sheryl Kelsey, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA; Deborah J. Lightner, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Deborah Myers, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence RI; Bassem Wadie, MBBCh, MSc, MD, Mansoura Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura, Egypt; J. Christian Winters, MD, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA.
References
- Complications of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for stress urinary incontinence.Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 1353-1357
- Complications of tension-free vaginal tape surgery: a multi-institutional review.BJU Int. 2004; 94: 110-113
- TVT compared with TVT-O and TOT: results from the Norwegian National Incontinence Registry.Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 1321-1326
- Complications associated with transobturator sling procedures: analysis of 233 consecutive cases with a 27 months follow-up.BMC Womens Health. 2009; 9: 28
- Minimally invasive synthetic suburethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 4: CD006375
- Lower urinary tract injuries after transobturator tape insertion by different routes: a large retrospective study.BJOG. 2006; 113: 1377-1381
- Risk factors for trocar injury to the bladder during mid urethral sling procedures.J Urol. 2009; 182: 174-179
- Incidental finding of a benign bladder tumor during the tension-free vaginal tape procedure.Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2007; 63: 28-30
- Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence.N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 2143-2155
- [A surprise in the bladder: the case of the misplaced Gortex].Harefuah. 2009; 148 (435, 476, 475)
- Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence.N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 2066-2076
- A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery.N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1987-1997
- Update of AUA guideline on the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence.J Urol. 2010; 183: 1906-1914
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: December 30, 2013
Accepted:
December 27,
2013
Received in revised form:
November 24,
2013
Received:
September 3,
2013
Footnotes
All members of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network are listed in the Appendix.
Supported by cooperative agreements ( U01 DK58225 , U01 DK58229 , U01 DK58234 , U01 DK58231 , U01 DK60379 , U01 DK60380 , U01 DK60393 , U01 DK60395 , U01 DK60397 , and U01 DK60401 ) from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development .
H.M.Z. and L.T.S. are consultants for Johnson & Johnson. The other authors report no conflict of interest.
Reprints not available from the authors.
Cite this article as: Zyczynski HM, Sirls LT, Greer WJ, et al. Findings of universal cystoscopy at incontinence surgery and their sequelae. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:480.e1-8.
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Mosby, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
