Article

Demographic and Clinical Predictors of Treatment Failure One Year After Midurethral Sling Surgery

Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 04/2011; 117(4):913-21. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820f3892
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify clinical and demographic factors predictive of midurethral sling failure.
Overall treatment failure was defined by one or more of the following objective outcomes: a positive stress test, positive 24-hour pad test or retreatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI); subjective outcomes: self reported SUI by the Medical, Epidemiologic and Social Aspect of Aging questionnaire, incontinent episodes by 3-day diary, or retreatment for SUI, or a combination of these. Logistic regression models adjusting for sling type and clinical site were used to predict odds of overall treatment failure after univariable analysis. Models were also fit to compare factors associated with objective failure and subjective failure only.
Previous UI surgery (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-3.47); maximum Q-tip excursion<30° (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.16-3.05); Medical, Epidemiologic and Social Aspect of Aging questionnaire urge score per 10 points (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.21-3.21); and pad weight per 10 g (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10) were predictors of overall failure. Having concomitant surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.90) was predictive of subjective failure only rather than objective failure. Age per 10 years (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14-1.90); Urogenital Distress Inventory score per 10 points (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.17); pad weight per 10 g (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10) were predictive of objective failure compared with subjective failure only. Associations of risk factors and failure were similar independent of sling type (retropubic or transobturator).
Twelve months after surgery, risk factors for overall and objective treatment failure were similar in women undergoing retropubic and transobturator sling procedures. This information may assist in counseling patients regarding efficacy of sling procedures and in setting expectations for women at increased odds for treatment failure.
ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00325039.
II.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Mary P Fitzgerald, Sep 01, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
153 Views
 · 
71 Downloads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical management continues to be the mainstay of treatment for patients with moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence who are nonresponsive to conservative measurements. In the past, the Burch colposuspension was considered the first line of treatment; however, since the introduction of mid-urethral slings in the mid 1990s the retropubic sling has become the “gold standard.” Tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) is the original retropubic procedure with good long-term efficacy and safety data available. However, in an attempt to decrease the risk of retropubic complications, such as vascular, bowel, or bladder injury, the transobturator and single incision mini-slings have been described. In this review, we give an overview on the recent data available on conventional anti-incontinence procedures as well as other more recently developed procedures. Recent studies with more than 10 years of follow-up continue to confirm the effectiveness of the TVT sling in the long-term, which the other approaches need to match.
    09/2013; 2(3). DOI:10.1007/s13669-013-0046-7
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Urodynamics are functional tests of the bladder that are commonly requested for the evaluation of urinary incontinence and prolapse. As a diagnostic test that also can provide prognostic information, urodynamics should be requested when there is a specific question that needs to be answered. This chapter will review the literature that pertains to the common reasons for requesting urodynamics before stress urinary incontinence surgery and review recent randomized trials on urodynamic testing before stress incontinence surgery. In addition, the chapter will compare the predictive ability of urodynamic prolapse reduction stress testing with office-based prolapse reduction stress testing for detecting postoperative stress urinary incontinence in women without symptoms of stress urinary incontinence undergoing prolapse surgery.
    09/2013; 2(3). DOI:10.1007/s13669-013-0048-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after a midurethral sling (MUS) may result from incorrect location of the sling relative to the midurethra. This study's objective was to evaluate the incidence of bladder neck (BN) or more proximal MUS in women undergoing reoperation for SUI after synthetic MUS. A retrospective review was performed of patients referred and treated for isolated recurrent SUI after synthetic MUS (transobturator or retropubic approach). Patients undergoing sling excision for other indications (eg, outlet obstruction, urinary tract erosion) were excluded. Preoperative video urodynamic (VUDS) parameters were examined. Operative reports at re-exploration provided the anatomic location of the sling. Fifteen women with SUI after MUS underwent VUDS and subsequent reoperation. The MUS was found proximal to or at the BN in 8 (53%) women and suburethral in 7 (47%). Women with BN or proximal sling location were equally likely to have an open (4/8 patients) or closed BN (4/8 patients) at rest on filling cystography. VUDS parameters, including the radiographic finding of an open BN preoperatively, were not predictive of BN or more proximal sling location intraoperatively. MUSs found at the BN or proximal were more likely to be retropubic slings (7/8 patients). Rates of concomitant anterior prolapse repair did not differ according to sling location. Recurrent SUI as a result of proximal MUS location cannot be predicted on preoperative VUDS parameters. Surgical exploration is the primary method for identifying this phenomenon as the etiology of failure in these patients.
    Urology 01/2012; 79(1):76-9. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.009 · 2.13 Impact Factor
Show more