Managing stress urinary incontinence - a primary care issue

2006 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kirby
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sio Fan Ng ◽  
Mei Kun Lok ◽  
Sai Meng Pang ◽  
Yuk Tsan Wun

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL S. ELLIOTT ◽  
TIMOTHY B. BOONE

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
Gemma Nightingale

Urinary incontinence is a common problem affecting 25–45% women. Effective management can have a huge impact on a patient’s quality of life and many treatments are available. Management should be dictated by the degree of bother the symptoms are having, and vary depending on the type on incontinence. Conservative measures should always be initiated, including optimisation of body mass index and smoking cessation. Overactive bladder and urge urinary incontinence can be improved with bladder retraining and avoidance of bladder stimulants. Medical treatment then includes anticholinergic medications or Mirabegron. More invasive options include Botulinum Toxin A (Botox®) injections, sacral nerve stimulation or urological surgery. Stress urinary incontinence should be managed initially with pelvic floor exercises, and input from a specialist nurse or physiotherapist is beneficial. The surgical options for managing stress incontinence have changed considerably over the years, but include bladder neck injections, mid-urethral slings, colposuspension or autologous fascial slings. Mixed urinary incontinence is more challenging to manage, but all conservative measures should be started. Further treatment is directed towards the predominant symptom, but overactivity should be controlled before surgical measures for stress urinary incontinence are performed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-94
Author(s):  
Rebecca S Geary ◽  
Ipek Gurol-Urganci ◽  
Jil B Mamza ◽  
Rebecca Lynch ◽  
Dina El-Hamamsy ◽  
...  

Background Urinary incontinence affects between 25% and 45% of women. The availability and quality of services is variable and inequitable, but our understanding of the drivers is incomplete. Objectives The objectives of the study were to model patient, specialist clinician, primary and secondary care, and geographical factors associated with referral and surgery for urinary incontinence, and to explore women’s experiences of urinary incontinence and expectations of treatments. Design This was a mixed-methods study. Setting The setting was NHS England. Participants Data were collected from all women with a urinary incontinence diagnosis in primary care data, and all women undergoing mid-urethral mesh tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence were included. Interviews were also carried out with 28 women from four urogynaecology clinics who were deciding whether or not to have surgery, and surveys were completed by 245 members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists with a specialist interest in urinary incontinence. Data sources The sources were patient-level data from Hospital Episode Statistics, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the Office for National Statistics mortality data linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. Interviews were conducted with women. An online vignette survey was conducted with members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were the rates of referral from primary to secondary care and surgery after referral, the rates of stress urinary incontinence surgery by geographical area, the risk of mid-urethral mesh tape removal and reoperation after mid-urethral mesh tape insertion. Results Almost half (45.8%) of women with a new urinary incontinence diagnosis in primary care were referred to a urinary incontinence specialist: 59.5% of these referrals were within 30 days of diagnosis. In total, 14.2% of women referred to a specialist underwent a urinary incontinence procedure (94.5% of women underwent a stress urinary incontinence procedure and 5.5% underwent an urgency urinary incontinence procedure) during a follow-up period of up to 10 years. Not all women were equally likely to be referred or receive surgery. Both referral and surgery were less likely for older women, those who were obese and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. The stress urinary incontinence surgery rate was 40 procedures per 100,000 women per year, with substantial geographical variation. Among women undergoing mid-urethral mesh tape insertion for stress urinary incontinence, the 9-year mesh tape removal rate was 3.3%. Women’s decision-making about urinary incontinence surgery centred on perceptions of their urinary incontinence severity and the seriousness/risk of surgery. Women judged urinary incontinence severity in relation to their daily lives and other women’s experiences, rather than frequency or quantity of leakage, as is often recorded and used by clinicians. Five groups of UK gynaecologists could be distinguished who differed mainly in their average inclination to recommend surgery to hypothetical urinary incontinence patients. The gynaecologists’ recommendations were also influenced by urinary incontinence subtype and the patient’s history of previous surgery. Limitations The primary and secondary care data lacked information on the severity of urinary incontinence. Conclusions There was substantial variation in rates of referrals, surgery, and mesh tape removals, both geographically and between women of different ages and women from different ethnic backgrounds. The variation persisted after adjustment for factors that were likely to affect women’s preferences. Growing safety concerns over mid-urethral mesh tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence during the period from which the data are drawn are likely to have introduced more uncertainty to women’s and clinicians’ treatment decision-making. Future work Future work should capture outcomes relevant to women, including ongoing urinary incontinence and pain that is reported by women themselves, both before and after mesh and non-mesh procedures, as well as following conservative treatments. Future research should examine long-term patient-reported outcomes of treatment, including for women who do not seek further health care or surgery, and the extent to which urinary incontinence severity explains observed variation in referrals and surgery. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  

Background: The previous successful pilot study led the inventor to expand into Sweden and increase the number of participants. We also expanded the research comparing the FemCap to other Pessaries on the market. Pessary treatment is conservative with significant limitations. These limitations include displacement, erosion, ulceration, and urethral obstruction. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is prevalent particularly among menopausal women. The first line of SUI treatment is the ring pessary however, a variety of different pessaries have been introduced into the market with hope of achieving better results. Objectives: To provide women with a safer, more effective device to treat SUI. Materials and Methods: The FemCap combines the features of the ring and space- occupying pessaries into one device, which makes it more successful. The Bowl of the Dome of the FemCap covers the cervix and prevents it from prolapsing. The Rim fits snugly into the vaginal fornices that supports the bladder neck. The Brim flares outward pushing against the cystocele and urethrocele anteriorly to restore the anatomy of the urethra and the bladder. We recruited 118 women who had significant SUI and asked them to compare their experience for one week before using the FemCap and one week after. The FemCap was self-inserted and removed by the participants. Results: Only 100 women completed the study 94 were completely dry after one week, while 6 women were not satisfied with the results. No side effects were reported by the participants and pelvic examinations did not show any erosion or ulceration of the vagina. Conclusion: The FemCap is safe and effective in restoring the anatomy of the bladder, and urethra, which could make it ideal for the treatment and prevention of mild to moderate SUI. More studies are warranted to further prove the utility of the FemCap to manage SUI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document