Inter- and intra-rater reliability of fluoroscopic cough stress testing

Is there a link between preoperative fluoroscopic cough stress testing and synthetic midurethral tape outcome?

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of our study was to assess the utility of fluoroscopic cough stress testing as a predictor of synthetic midurethral tape (MUT) outcome. The secondary aim was to examine whether baseline demographics, clinical symptoms and urodynamic variables could predict MUT success.

STUDY DESIGN

We carried out a retrospective study including women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) who underwent retropubic MUT in a tertiary referral urogynaecology unit. We excluded cases where concurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery was performed. Patients were subdivided into groups based on the pre-operative fluoroscopic cough stress testing, using Blaivas and Versi classifications. Subjective outcome was evaluated at 6 weeks based on self-reported SUI in the symptom domain of the King's Health Questionnaire. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of treatment success.

RESULTS

143 patients were included in the study. Blaivas and Versi classifications were not useful in predicting subjective success (p=0.44 and p=0.40, respectively). Baseline demographics, clinical and other urodynamic variables failed to predict subjective outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluoroscopic cough stress testing is not a useful predictor of MUT outcome. No preoperative variables have been found to predict MUT success.

[European Association of Urology guidelines on assessment and nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence]

CONTEXT

The previous European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence comprised a summary of sections of the 2009 International Consultation on Incontinence. A decision was made in 2010 to rewrite these guidelines based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel, using a sustainable methodology.

OBJECTIVE

We present a short version of the full guidelines on assessment, diagnosis, and nonsurgical treatment of urinary incontinence, with the aim of increasing their dissemination.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches, based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions. Appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated on a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

The full version of the guidelines is available online (http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidelines include algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence, and they are more immediately useable in daily clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where such evidence does not exist, they present a consensus of expert opinion.

EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence

CONTEXT

The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence published in March 2012 have been rewritten based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel using a sustainable methodology.

OBJECTIVE

We present a short version here of the full guidelines on the surgical treatment of patients with urinary incontinence, with the aim of dissemination to a wider audience.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions. The appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated in a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

The full version of the guidance is available online (www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidance includes algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence and have greater accessibility in daily clinical practice. Two original meta-analyses were carried out specifically for these guidelines and are included in this report.

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where high-level evidence is lacking, they present a consensus of expert panel opinion.