Occult Urinary Incontinence, Diabetes, Obesity, Prolapse Severity, and Type of Surgical Repair as Risk Factors for De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women Undergoing Surgical Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

PURPOSE: The International Continence Society and the International Urogynecological Association have not yet standardized the definition of de novo stress urinary incontinence. Recent studies define the development of stress urinary incontinence as occurring after surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse in previously continent women. The mechanisms that cause de novo stress urinary incontinence are not yet clear. Knowledge of the predictive factors for this outcome after surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse would be useful for assessing whether a concomitant anti-incontinence procedure should be performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify some of the risk factors for de novo stress urinary incontinence: high body mass index, pelvic organ prolapse stage before surgery, presence of occult urinary incontinence, type of surgery, and the presence of diabetes mellitus. The present study was registered in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42021293764, and the systematic review was carried out according to the MOOSE recommendations and with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 2429 articles were identified. Nine cohort studies were included in the systematic review and seven in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach for each outcome. In the meta-analysis, associations were identified between de novo stress urinary incontinence and occult urinary incontinence (n: 422; OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.26-3.22; p = 0.004), diabetes (n: 1213; OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.30-4.26; p = 0.005), and advanced pelvic organ prolapse (n: 1003; OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.14-3.30; p = 0.01). Consulting a meta-analysis for the type of surgery was deemed impossible. A previous study comparing abdominal sacrocolpopexy with minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy revealed that women who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy were more likely to develop de novo stress urinary incontinence (n: 77; OR: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.56-14.34; p = 0.005). Another study found that pelvic organ prolapse repair using a transvaginal mesh was associated with higher levels of de novo stress urinary incontinence compared to robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (n: 76; OR: 6.74; 95% CI: 1.35-33.75; p = 0.02). A meta-analysis of overweight or obesity was not possible due to the different assessment methods used in the studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed that occult incontinence, diabetes, and advanced pelvic organ prolapse before repair were associated with de novo stress urinary incontinence and these groups may therefore benefit from for anti-incontinence procedures concomitant with pelvic organ prolapse repair.