INJ Search

CLOSE


Int Neurourol J > Volume 29(1); 2025 > Article
Kuroda, Hamamoto, Kobayashi, Horiguchi, and Ito: The Presence of Preoperative Urinary Incontinence Significantly Correlates With Postoperative Urinary Incontinence Following Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

ABSTRACT

Purpose

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a significant complication following surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), including laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). Although the incidence of postoperative UI is lower after LSC than after transvaginal mesh surgery, a subset of patients still experience UI. This study aimed to determine which factors, including mesh-related factors, contribute to UI impairing daily life following LSC.

Methods

The study enrolled 96 patients who underwent LSC at our institution between June 2016 and September 2023. The Pearson chi-square test, multiple logistic regression analysis, and Cox proportional hazards model were used to determine the independent factors contributing to UI after LSC.

Results

The Pearson chi-square test showed that body mass index, POP quantification (POP-Q) stage 4 and the presence of preoperative UI significantly correlated with the postoperative UI among preoperative and intraoperative factors (all P<0.05). POP-Q stage 4 and the presence of preoperative UI were also significant factors in both univariate and multivariate analyses of multiple logistic regression analysis (all P<0.05). However, only preoperative UI remained an independent predictor for shorter time to UI onset in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio, 3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.29–11.58; P=0.0158).

Conclusions

Patients with preoperative UI and stage 4 POP should receive close monitoring for postoperative UI.

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) involves the descent of pelvic organs through the vaginal canal and is associated with urinary, sexual, and defecatory dysfunction, leading to reduced quality of life (QoL). Studies suggest that approximately 50% of women over 50 years old, especially those with multiple births, experience POP [1].
POP can be treated through non-mesh procedures (e.g., colporrhaphy and vaginal hysterectomy) or mesh-based surgeries, including transvaginal mesh surgery (TVM) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). Although non-mesh procedures have higher recurrence rates, mesh-based surgeries offer improved long-term outcomes [2, 3]. TVM, LSC, and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy have lower recurrence rates [4].
However, mesh-based procedures, including LSC, can lead to stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and mesh exposure [5, 6]. SUI, characterized by involuntary urine leakage during exertion or sneezing, occurs in 15%–80% of patients with POP [7, 8]. After POP surgery, excessive tension in the mesh placed beneath the bladder can result in urethral kinking and dynamic obstruction, potentially leading to new-onset postoperative SUI (de novo SUI) [9, 10]. Although reported rates of postoperative SUI vary considerably, the incidence following LSC ranges from 7.5% to 23% [11]. On the other hand, urge urinary incontinence (UUI) is defined as a urine leak that is either preceded or accompanied by an intense desire to urinate. In addition, mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) is characterized by involuntary urine leakage that is linked to urgency, exertion, effort, coughing, or sneezing [12, 13]. Incontinence of any of the types described above occurs in a certain percentage even after POP surgery [14, 15].
However, it is essential to identify the underlying causes of postoperative UI and develop contingency plans to manage this distressing complication [15-17]. In this study, we analyzed data from patients with POP who underwent LSC at our institution to identify potential factors—including mesh-related factors—that may contribute to postoperative UI including SUI, UUI, and MUI affecting patients’ QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

The medical records of 96 patients who underwent LSC between June 2016 and September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical indication was POP of stage ≥2 with symptoms, such as a feeling of vaginal protrusion, or complications like hydronephrosis and/or hydroureter caused by POP, even in asymptomatic cases.
Patients who underwent LSC during the specified period were included in this study, while those who declined to participate were excluded.
The median postoperative observation period was 12.4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12.2–18.9). The median operative time calculated from all patients was 183 minutes (IQR, 153–252 minutes). Table 1 presents clinical data, including age, body mass index (BMI), presence of diabetes mellitus, POP-Q stage, history of hysterectomy, blood loss, operative time, preoperative and postoperative voiding dysfunction, preoperative and postoperative UI, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) scores at 1 year postoperatively, mesh products used, and intraoperative complications. Variables following a normal distribution are expressed as mean±standard deviation, while those not following a normal distribution are expressed as median (IQR).

Surgical Methods

The LSC procedure followed the method described by Wattiez et al. [18]. After port placement, the patient was positioned in a 15° Trendelenburg position to improve visualization of the pelvic cavity by shifting the bowel cranially. The key steps were as follows:
(1) Anterior vaginal wall dissection: The space between the anterior vaginal wall and bladder was dissected, and anterior wall mesh—either Polyform (Boston Scientific Japan, Tokyo, Japan) or ORIHIME (Kono Seisakusho, Tokyo, Japan)—was fixed.
(2) Subtotal hysterectomy and adnexectomy: These procedures were performed if the uterus and adnexa were present. Subtotal hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy are not always necessary in LSC, but since preservation of the uterus requires separate retroperitonealization of the anterior and posterior wall meshes, we perform subtotal hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy to simplify the procedure. In this setting, the presence or absence of hysterectomy was added as a preoperative factor because the ligation of the uterine artery might have affected the blood supply to the vaginal wall.
(3) Posterior wall dissection: The posterior vaginal wall was separated from the rectum, and posterior wall mesh was fixed.
(4) Mesh retroperitonealization: The mesh was covered, and the pelvic peritoneum was closed.
(5) Peritoneal closure: The peritoneum was completely closed after securing the mesh to the anterior longitudinal ligament.

Assessment of Pre- and Postoperative UI

In our previous study, we found a significant correlation between daily life-impairing UI and the total ICIQ-SF score [15]. Similarly, in this study, the ICIQ-SF score was significantly associated with daily life-impairing UI at 1 year postoperatively. Receiver operator characteristic analysis identified an ICIQ-SF score of ≥6 as indicative of daily life-impairing UI (Fig. 1). Daily life-impairing UI was defined as UI that interferes with daily life because of urine leakage regardless of whether it is SUI, UUI, or MUI.

Statistical Analysis

The Pearson chi-square test was performed to evaluate the correlation between preoperative plus intraoperative factors and postoperative UI. The multiple logistic regression model and the Cox proportional hazards model were used to determine the independent factors that contribute to postoperative UI. Statistical analysis was conducted using JMP PRO ver. 17 (SAS institute, Cary, NC, USA). A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the patient demographics. Intraoperative complications included bladder injury in 4 patients and anterior vaginal wall injury in 7 patients, all classified as Clavien-Dindo classification grade 1 [19]. No major postoperative complications were observed.
The correlation analysis using Pearson chi-square test between preoperative and intraoperative factors and UI at 1 year postoperatively revealed that BMI, POP-Q stage 4, and the presence of preoperative UI were significantly associated with postoperative UI (all P<0.05) (Table 2).
Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent factors influencing postoperative UI. In the univariate analysis, BMI, POP-Q stage 4, and preoperative UI were significant predictors (P=0.048, P=0.005, and P<0.001, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, only POP-Q stage 4 and preoperative UI remained as significant predictors of postoperative UI (P=0.039 and P=0.003, respectively) (Table 3).
The univariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that patients with POP stage 4 and those with preoperative UI had significantly higher risks of developing postoperative UI (P=0.042 and P=0.007, respectively). The multivariate analysis identified preoperative UI as the strongest predictor of postoperative UI, with a hazard ratio of 3.56 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.29–11.58; P=0.016) (Table 4).
Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test indicated significant differences in UI-free survival rates between patients with and without POP-Q stage 4 as well as between those with and without preoperative UI (P=0.036 and P=0.003, respectively) (Fig. 2A and B).

DISCUSSION

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that POP-Q stage 4 and preoperative UI are independent predictors of postoperative UI (Table 3). Similarly, the Cox proportional hazards model confirmed that preoperative UI is an independent factor affecting the development of postoperative UI (Table 4). The Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test also demonstrated a significant difference in outcomes based on POP-Q stage 4 and the presence of preoperative UI (Fig. 2). These results suggest that preoperative UI is a key determinant of daily life-impairing UI following LSC. Although LSC generally has a lower incidence of postoperative UI than TVM procedures, it is still associated with a risk of UI, occurring in a few percent of cases [20, 21].
One study reported that postoperative SUI was associated with an increased point Ba measurement and the presence of preoperative SUI. Point Ba represents the most dependent position of the upper anterior vaginal wall (between the vaginal cuff or fornix and point Aa). Point Aa is located on the anterior vaginal wall 3 cm proximal to the external urethral meatus [22]. Their findings, consistent with ours, indicated that patients with advanced POP are at risk of developing postoperative UI. Severe prolapse can obscure preexisting SUI by exerting external pressure on the bladder neck or urethra. Once the prolapse is corrected through LSC, the underlying SUI may become apparent. This scenario is particularly common in women who experience no or mild SUI symptoms preoperatively but develop significant symptoms postoperatively. Preoperative assessments to identify occult SUI are therefore essential to plan appropriate anti-incontinence treatments [23].
Postoperative UI after LSC may also result from anatomical misalignment. Overcorrection or excessive mesh tension can displace the bladder neck or urethra, leading to de novo or worsened SUI. Such misalignment can impair the urethral closure mechanism, contributing to bladder outlet obstruction or increased urethral mobility. Cystoscopic observations during LSC have shown bladder neck opening and abnormal tension along the trigone and posterior wall because of mesh traction [24]. Additionally, some studies suggest that LSC might not address functional sphincter deficiencies, as maximal urethral closure pressure can decrease postoperatively [25]. Careful intraoperative adjustments may be needed to avoid overcorrection, and postoperative monitoring is essential to evaluate whether the anatomical realignment affects continence outcomes [26].
Overactive bladder (OAB) and urgent urinary incontinence (UUI) may also persist after LSC, potentially because of unresolved detrusor overactivity. Although LSC restores normal pelvic anatomy, it may not fully address the underlying bladder dysfunction. In some cases, surgical inflammation or nerve irritation might exacerbate OAB symptoms, resulting in de novo UUI. Pharmacologic management with antimuscarinics or β3 agonists may be necessary to control urgency and frequency issues in these patients [27]. In this study, the rate of patients with OAB among enrolled patients before surgery was 77 of 96 (80.2%), and the rate of de novo OAB 1 year postoperatively was 5 of 19 (26.3%). The cure rate of OAB 1 year after surgery was 30 of 77 (39.0%). This cure rate appeared to be in need of improvement.
This study has several limitations. First, it is a retrospective study conducted at a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the relatively small sample size reduces the statistical power of the results. Third, the median follow-up duration was relatively short, potentially limiting the ability to assess long-term outcomes. Future multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to validate our findings and strengthen the evidence base. Expanding the scope of future studies will enhance the robustness of conclusions and provide insights into the long-term effects of LSC on UI outcomes.
In conclusion, preoperative UI was found to be a significant predictor of postoperative UI following LSC. Patients with POP-Q stage 4 should also be carefully monitored for postoperative UI.

NOTES

Grant/Fund Support
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Research Ethics
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the tenets of the 2013 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical standards of the National Defense Medical College. The Ethics Committee of the National Defense Medical College approved the study protocol on August 21, 2020 (ID: 4219; Saitama, Japan). All patients provided written informed consent.
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT
· Conceptualization: KK, KH, HK, AH, KI
· Data curation: KK, KH, HK
· Formal analysis: KK, KH, HK, AH
· Methodology: KK, KH, HK, AH, KI
· Project administration: KK, KH, AH, KI
· Visualization: KK, KH, HK, AH, KI
· Writing - original draft: KK
· Writing - review & editing: KK, KI

REFERENCES

1. Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:1783-90. PMID: 24142054
crossref pmid pdf
2. Kotani Y, Murakamsi K, Kai S, Yahata T, Kanto A, Matsumura N. Comparison of surgical results and postoperative recurrence rates by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with other surgical procedures for managing pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2021;10:221-5. PMID: 34909379
crossref pmid pmc
3. Chang TC, Hsiao SM, Wu PC, Chen CH, Wu WY, Lin HH. Comparison of clinical outcomes between tailored transvaginal mesh surgery and native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. J Formos Med Assoc 2019;118:1623-32. PMID: 31542332
crossref pmid
4. Warembourg S, Labaki M, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Fatton B. Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center. Int Urogynecol J 2017;28:1139-51. PMID: 28150032
crossref pmid pdf
5. Dandolu V, Akiyama M, Allenback G, Pathak P. Mesh complications and failure rates after transvaginal mesh repair compared with abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and to native tissue repair in treating apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2017;28:215-22. PMID: 27562466
crossref pmid pdf
6. Kanasaki H, Oride A, Mitsuo T, Miyazaki K. Occurrence of pre- and postoperative stress urinary incontinence in 105 patients who underwent tension-free vaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2014;2014:643495. PMID: 24653836
crossref pmid pmc pdf
7. Misraï V, Rouprêt M, Cour F, Chartier-Kastler E, Richard F. De novo urinary stress incontinence after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. BJU Int 2008;101:594-7. PMID: 17995964
crossref pmid
8. Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth international consultation on incontinence recommendations of the international scientific committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:213-40. PMID: 20025020
crossref pmid
9. Kasturi S, Diaz SI, McDermott CD, Woodman PJ, Bump RC, Terry CL, et al. De novo stress urinary incontinence after negative prolapse reduction stress testing for total vaginal mesh procedures: incidence and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:487.e1-4. PMID: 21925638
crossref pmid
10. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, et al. Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy with Burch Colposuspension to Reduce Urinary Stress Incontinence. New Engl J Med 2006;354:1557-66. PMID: 16611949
crossref pmid
11. Abdullah B, Nomura J, Moriyama S, Huang T, Tokiwa S, Togo M, et al. Clinical and urodynamic assessment in patients with pelvic organ prolapse before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 2017;28:1543-9. PMID: 28283710
crossref pmid pdf
12. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:5-26. PMID: 19937315
pmid
13. Khandelwal C, Kistler C. Diagnosis of urinary incontinence. Am Fam Physician 2013;87:543-50. PMID: 23668444
pmid
14. Szymanowski P, Banach P, Wisniewski A, Szepieniec WK. The impact of cystocele repair on urge symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Ginekol Pol 2022 Mar 24;doi: 10.5603/GP.a2022.0008. [Epub]. crossref
15. Kuroda K, Hamamoto K, Kawamura K, Masunaga A, Kobayashi H, Horiguchi A, et al. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form as a substitute for 1-hour pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence in patients with pelvic organ prolapse undergoing surgery. Int Neurourol J 2024;28:215-24. PMID: 39363412
crossref pmid pmc pdf
16. Deng T, Wang S, Liang X, Chen L, Wen Y, Zhang X, et al. Medium-to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse. BMC Womens Health 2022;22:503. PMID: 36476590
crossref pmid pmc pdf
17. Kuroda K, Hamamoto K, Kawamura K, Kobayashi H, Horiguchi A, Ito K. Efficacy of transvaginal surgery using an ORIHIME mesh with wider arms and adjusted length. Cureus 2024;16:e57106. PMID: 38681380
crossref pmid pmc
18. Wattiez A, Boughizane S, Alexandre F, Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL, et al. Laparoscopic procedures for stress incontinence and prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1995;7:317-21. PMID: 7578974
crossref pmid
19. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: a five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187-96. PMID: 19638912
pmid
20. Wei D, Wang P, Niu X, Zhao X. Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019;45:915-22. PMID: 30652385
crossref pmid pmc pdf
21. Liu CK, Tsai CP, Chou MM, Shen PS, Chen GD, Hung YC, et al. A comparative study of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and total vaginal mesh procedure using lightweight polypropylene meshes for prolapse repair. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2014;53:552-8. PMID: 25510700
crossref pmid
22. Madhu C, Swift S, Moloney-Geany S, Drake MJ. How to use the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system? Neurourol Urodyn 2018;37:S39-43. PMID: 30614056
crossref pmid pdf
23. Wong JWH, Ramm O. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2021;64:314-20. PMID: 33859096
crossref pmid
24. Nomura Y, Okada Y, Hiramatsu A, Matsubara E, Kato K, Yoshimura Y. A new method of adjusting mesh tension using cystoscopy during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 2021;32:3089-93. PMID: 33871668
crossref pmid pmc pdf
25. Lau HH, Huang WC, Cheng YW, Wang H, Su TH. Changes in urodynamic measurements and bladder neck position after single-incision trans-vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:1629-35. PMID: 26156205
crossref pmid pdf
26. Nygaard IE, Heit M. Stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:607-20. PMID: 15339776
crossref pmid
27. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(4):CD004014. crossref

Fig. 1.
Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form total score for the presence of urinary incontinence 1 year postoperatively. The value of the farthest point from a diagonal from the lower left to the upper right (the tangent point at which the gray diagonal line contacts with ROC curve) is 6. The corresponding area under the curve is 0.74906.
inj-2448414-207f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
There was a significant difference in the time to occurrence of urinary incontinence (UI) between patients with and without stage 4 pelvic organ prolapse (A), and patients with and without preoperative UI (B).
inj-2448414-207f2.jpg
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics of the LSC patients (n=96)
Characteristic Value
Age (yr) 74.0 (69.3–78.0)
BMI (kg/m2) 22.6 ± 2.4
Diabetes mellitus
 Present 12
 Absent 84
POP-Q stage
 Stage 2 6
 Stage 3 71
 Stage 4 19
Previous hysterectomy
 Present 9
 Absent 87
Blood loss (mL) 2.0 (0–7.5)
Operative time (min) 183 (153–252)
Preoperative voiding dysfunction (PVR ≥ 100 mL)
 Present 35
 Absent 61
Postoperative voiding dysfunction (PVR ≥ 100 mL)
 Present 3
 Absent 93
Preoperative daily life-impairing UI
 Present 54
 Absent 42
Postoperative daily life-impairing UI
 Present 11
 Absent 85
ICIQ-SF score at 1 year postoperatively
 ≥6 29
 ≤5 67
Mesh product used
 ORIHIME 66
 Polyform 30
Intraoperative complications
 Bladder injury 4
 AVW injury 7

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or mean±standard deviation or number (%).

LSC, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; BMI, body mass index; POP-Q, pelvic organ prolapse quantification; PVR, postvoid residual urine volume; UI, urinary incontinence; ICIQ-SF, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form; AVW, anterior vaginal wall.

Table 2.
Association between postoperative urinary incontinence and pre- and intraoperative variables
Variable ICIQ-SF at 1 year postoperatively
P-value
≥6 ≤5
Age (yr) 0.658
 ≥ 74 17 (32.1) 36 (67.9)
 < 74 12 (27.9) 31 (72.1)
BMI (kg/m2) 0.045
 ≥ 22.7 19 (39.6) 29 (60.4)
 < 22.7 10 (20.8) 38 (79.2)
Diabetes mellitus 0.674
 Present 3 (25.0) 9 (75.0)
 Absent 26 (31.0) 58 (69.0)
POP-Q 0.003
 Stage 4 11 (57.9) 8 (42.1)
 Stage≤3 18 (23.4) 59 (76.6)
Previous hysterectomy 0.329
 Present 4 (44.4) 5 (55.6)
 Absent 25 (28.7) 62 (71.3)
Operative time (min) 0.930
 ≥ 180 14 (29.8) 33 (70.2)
 < 180 15 (30.6) 34 (69.4)
Preoperative PVR (mL) 0.791
 ≥ 100 10 (28.6) 25 (71.4)
 < 100 19 (31.2) 42 (68.8)
Preoperative UI < 0.001
 Present 25 (46.3) 29 (53.7)
 Absent 4 (9.5) 38 (90.5)
Mesh product 0.142
 ORIHIME 23 (34.9) 43 (65.1)
 Polyform 6 (20.0) 24 (80.0)

Values are presented as number (%).

ICIQ-SF, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form; BMI, body mass index; POP-Q, pelvic organ prolapse quantification; PVR, postvoid residual urine volume; UI, urinary incontinence.

Table 3.
Factors contributing to postoperative UI (ICIQ-SF≥6) in multiple logistic regression analysis
Variable Univariate
Multivariate
OR 95% CI P-value OR 95% CI P-value
Age (yr), ≥ 74 or < 74 1.22 0.51–2.94 0.658 - -
BMI (kg/m2), ≥ 22.7 or < 22.7 2.49 1.01–6.16 0.048 1.63 0.59–4.53 0.347
DM, present or absent 1.34 0.34–5.38 0.675 - -
POP-Q stage, 4 or ≤ 3 4.51 1.57–12.91 0.005 3.33 1.06–10.45 0.039
Previous hysterectomy, present or absent 1.98 0.49–8.00 0.336 - -
Operative time (min), ≥ 180 or < 180 1.04 0.43–2.49 0.930 - -
Preoperative PVR (mL), ≥ 100 or < 100 1.13 0.45–2.81 0.791 - -
Preoperative UI, present or absent 8.19 2.57–26.15 < 0.001 6.13 1.83–20.54 0.003
Mesh product, ORIHIME or Polyform 0.47 0.17–1.31 0.147 - -

UI, urinary incontinence; ICIQ-SF, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; POP-Q, pelvic organ prolapse quantification; PVR, postvoid residual urine volume.

Table 4.
Factors contributing to urinary incontinence-free survival in Cox proportional hazard model
Variable Univariate
Multivariate
HR 95% CI P-value HR 95% CI P-value
Age (yr), ≥ 74 or < 74 1.23 0.57–2.64 0.597 - -
BMI (kg/m2), ≥ 22.7 or < 22.7 1.90 0.88–4.13 0.104 - -
DM, present or absent 1.51 0.45–5.05 0.501 - -
POP-Q stage, 4 or ≤ 3 2.28 1.03–5.02 0.042 1.53 0.68–3.46 0.301
Previous hysterectomy, present or absent 2.32 0.79–6.77 0.125 - -
Operative time (min), ≥ 180 or < 180 1.20 0.56–2.58 0.635 - -
Preoperative PVR (mL), ≥ 100 or < 100 1.21 0.55–2.67 0.635 - -
Preoperative UI, present or absent 4.38 1.51–12.69 0.007 3.86 1.29–11.58 0.016
Mesh product, ORIHIME or Polyform 1.82 0.73–4.53 0.199 - -

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; POP-Q, pelvic organ prolapse quantification; PVR, postvoid residual urine volume; UI, urinary incontinence.

TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
  • 289 View
  • 17 Download
We recommend


ARTICLE & ORGAN
Article Category

Browse all articles >

Organ

Browse all articles >

ISSUES
DISEASES & TOPICS
Diseases

Browse all articles >

Topics

Browse all articles >

AUTHOR
INFORMATION

Official Journal of Korean Continence Society & ESSIC (International Society for the Study of BPS) & Korean Society of Urological Research & The Korean Children’s Continence and Enuresis Society & The Korean Association of Urogenital Tract Infection and Inflammation & Korean Society of Geriatric Urological Care
Editorial Office
Department of Urology, Kangbuk Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,
29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03181, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2001-2237     Fax: +82-2-2001-2247    E-mail: support@einj.org

Copyright © 2025 by Korean Continence Society.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next