Cited by 18Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchSexual function and dysfunction studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Overactive Bladder Symptoms After Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to identify the characteristics associated with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms perioperatively in patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery with and without slings and to determine the rate of OAB symptom resolution postoperatively. Methods: This retrospective, single-institution study involved women undergoing prolapse surgery with and without concomitant midurethral sling from 2011 to 2016. A validated questionnaire was used to determine OAB symptoms preoperatively and postoperatively. The primary outcome was rate of resolution in OAB symptoms after POP surgery with and without midurethral sling. Baseline characteristics and surgery type were presented, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were applied to evaluate characteristics associated with OAB symptoms at the first postoperative visit. Results: The analysis included 203 patients. Among those with baseline OAB symptoms, 103 (61%) had symptom resolution, whereas 66 (39.1%) reported persistent symptoms. Among 34 patients without baseline OAB symptoms, 6% developed de novo symptoms. Older age was found to be a significant risk factor for persistence of symptoms postoperatively both on univariate (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94–1; P = 0.038) and multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio, 0.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.92–1; P = 0.049). The rate of medication discontinuation postoperatively was 25%. Conclusions: Approximately 61% of patients undergoing POP surgery had resolution of OAB symptoms postoperatively whether or not an incontinence procedure was performed. Older age was significantly related to persistent OAB symptoms in both univariate ( P = 0.038) and multivariate ( P = 0.049) models. The rate of de novo OAB symptoms was 6%.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/spv.0000000000000700

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 18

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, J. R., High, R. A., Dziadek, O., Ocon, A., Muir, T. W., Xu, J., & Antosh, D. D.
Affiliations
  • Houston Methodist (US)
  • Baylor Scott & White Medical Center - Temple (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Justine R.
Venue
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2019-01-24
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
742-745
ISSN
  • 2151-8378 (ISSN-L)
  • 2154-4212
OpenAlex
W2913505972
Cited by
18
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Urogynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
overactive bladder, pelvic organ prolapse surgery, midurethral sling, age as risk factor, urinary incontinence surgery
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Urinary Bladder, Overactive, Suburethral Slings, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Perioperative Period, Symptom Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review