Comparative analysis of different surgical procedures for female stress urinary incontinence. Is stem cell implantation the future?

RATIONALE Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) represents a major public health problem and although there are many treatments available, only a few can restore the anatomical background of this disorder. Injections of stem cells into the middle urethra have the possibility of restoring the contractility of the striated muscles and rhabdosphincters. The aim of stem cell therapy is to replace, repair or enhance the biological function of damaged tissue or organs. OBJECTIVE Assessing the latest minimally invasive procedures of intra and perisphincterian injection of autologous stem cells and to compare the urodynamic results at one year after different surgical procedures for genuine stress urinary incontinence by measuring their impact on urinary flow rate (Qmax) and bladder pressure at Qmax during micturition. METHODS AND RESULTS On October 18, 2010, in "Fundeni" Clinic of Urology and Renal Transplantation we performed for the first time in Romania, stem cell implantation in the urethral sphincter in four patients with stress urinary incontinence and compared the results of the urodynamic investigations of female patients operated with pure SUI with other surgical techniques. The analyzed procedures were: Burch colposuspension (11 cases), TVT-like (IVS sling in 26 cases), TOT-like (CYSTO-SWING sling in 41 cases). Followed variables were: Qmax, Pves at Qmax, postvoiding residual (PVR). Clinical examination and voiding diary in six weeks after the surgery revealed a decrease of urine loss with an improvement of the patient' quality of life according to visual analogue scale. For female patients with myoblasts implant, changes in Qmax and Pves at Qmax were minimal and statistically insignificant in the context of inclusion criteria, but we noticed a trend of minimal change in these urodynamic characteristics, namely, an average decrease of Qmax with 2.1 mL/s and an average increase of Pves at Qmax with 0.6 cmH(2)O. CONCLUSIONS The development of myoblasts implant (if they will pass the time-proof test) could represent a breakthrough in treating this condition. As the pathogenesis of SUI is better understood and the development of tissue engineering technology advances, tissue engineering will play a more important role in the treatment of patients with SUI.