Dieter Alexis A, Edenfield Autumn L, Weidner Alison C, Siddiqui Nazema Y
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul-Aug;20(4):203-7. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000087.
To assess how site of pelvic organ prolapse repair affects overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, we compared change in OAB symptoms in women undergoing isolated anterior/apical (AA) repair versus isolated posterior (P) repair.
This is a retrospective cohort study of women with bothersome OAB undergoing either AA or P prolapse repair. The subjects completed the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form and the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) validated questionnaires preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively. Our primary outcome was OAB-q symptom severity (SS) change score (preoperative minus postoperative score) compared between the 2 groups.
Of 175 subjects, 133 (76%) underwent AA repair and 42 (24%) underwent P repair. Baseline OAB-q SS scores and baseline characteristics were similar except that the AA group had more severe baseline prolapse (median pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 3 for AA [interquartile range, 2-3] vs stage 2 for P [interquartile range, 1-3]; P<0.01] and a higher rate of concomitant midurethral sling (57% in AA vs 31% in P; P<0.01). Overall OAB symptoms significantly improved within 6 weeks of surgery (P<0.01). The mean ± SD OAB-q SS change score was higher in the AA repair group (26 ± 24 in AA vs 13 ± 28 in P; P=0.01), indicating greater improvement in OAB symptom severity after AA repair. In linear regression adjusting for age, body mass index, diabetes, stress urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage, anticholinergic use, and midurethral sling, this difference did not remain significant.
Patients have significant improvement in OAB symptoms after POP repair. In adjusted analyses, there was no difference in improvement in OAB-q SS scores in the patients who had AA versus P repair.
为评估盆腔器官脱垂修复部位如何影响膀胱过度活动症(OAB)症状,我们比较了接受单纯前位/顶部(AA)修复与单纯后位(P)修复的女性OAB症状的变化。
这是一项针对患有困扰性OAB且接受AA或P脱垂修复的女性的回顾性队列研究。受试者在术前和术后6周完成盆底困扰量表简表和膀胱过度活动症问卷(OAB-q)这两种经过验证的问卷。我们的主要结局是比较两组之间的OAB-q症状严重程度(SS)变化评分(术前评分减去术后评分)。
在175名受试者中,133名(76%)接受了AA修复,42名(24%)接受了P修复。除了AA组的基线脱垂更严重(AA组盆腔器官脱垂量化中位阶段为3[四分位间距,2 - 3],而P组为2[四分位间距,1 - 3];P<0.01)以及伴发中段尿道吊带的发生率更高(AA组为57%,P组为31%;P<0.01)外,基线OAB-q SS评分和基线特征相似。总体OAB症状在术后6周内显著改善(P<0.0憨)。AA修复组的平均±标准差OAB-q SS变化评分更高(AA组为26±24,P组为13±28;P = 0.01),表明AA修复后OAB症状严重程度改善更大。在对年龄、体重指数、糖尿病、压力性尿失禁、盆腔器官脱垂量化阶段、抗胆碱能药物使用和中段尿道吊带进行校正的线性回归分析中,这种差异不再显著。
盆腔器官脱垂修复术后患者的OAB症状有显著改善。在校正分析中,接受AA修复与P修复患者的OAB-q SS评分改善情况没有差异。