Literature DB >> 19375571

Trends in stress urinary incontinence inpatient procedures in the United States, 1979-2004.

Sallie S Oliphant1, Li Wang, Clareann H Bunker, Jerry L Lowder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe national trends in surgery for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). STUDY
DESIGN: We used data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey, a federal dataset sampling patient discharges from US inpatient hospitals. We analyzed patient and hospital demographics and International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnostic and procedures codes for 1979-2004. Age-adjusted rates per 1000 women were calculated with 1990 US Census population data.
RESULTS: The number of women who have undergone SUI surgery each year increased from 48,345 in 1979 to 103,467 in 2004. In women > or = 52 years old, the age-adjusted rate more than doubled from 0.64-1.60 procedures per 1000 women; in women < 52 years old, the age-adjusted rate fell from 0.57-0.47. Age-adjusted rates for retropubic urethral suspension (ICD-9-CM, 59.5) fell from 0.37 in 1979 to 0.14 in 2004. For suprapubic sling procedures (ICD-9-CM, 59.4), the age-adjusted rates rose from 0.02 in 1979 to a peak of 0.10 in 1997 and then fell to 0.03 in 2004. Age-adjusted rates for other repair of urinary stress incontinence (ICD-9-CM, 59.79) rose from 0.06 in 1979 to 0.64 in 2004.
CONCLUSION: The number of women who have undergone SUI surgery increased significantly from 1979-2004. Because the National Hospital Discharge Survey data do not include ambulatory procedures, accurate information on same-day surgeries is unavailable. Currently no ICD-9-CM procedure code exists specifically for midurethral sling procedures. Both missed sampling of same-day procedures and nonspecific or inaccurate coding may explain the surprising decline in suprapubic sling procedures and the rise in rates of other repair of SUI. A national ambulatory surgical database and a specific code for midurethral sling are needed to capture these important data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19375571      PMCID: PMC2699936          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  12 in total

1.  Design and operation of the National Hospital Discharge Survey: 1988 redesign.

Authors:  C Dennison; R Pokras
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 1       Date:  2000-12

Review 2.  Urinary incontinence: clinical features.

Authors:  A Cutner; L Cardozo
Journal:  Practitioner       Date:  1990-12

3.  The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections.

Authors:  K M Luber; S Boero; J Y Choe
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 4.  Epidemiology and classification of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  F M Cheater; C M Castleden
Journal:  Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2000-04

5.  Annual direct cost of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  L Wilson; J S Brown; G P Shin; K O Luc; L L Subak
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Procedures for urinary incontinence in the United States, 1979-1997.

Authors:  Sarah Hamilton Boyles; Anne M Weber; Leslie Meyn
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Efficacy of bladder training in older women with urinary incontinence.

Authors:  J A Fantl; J F Wyman; D K McClish; S W Harkins; R K Elswick; J R Taylor; E C Hadley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-02-06       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence.

Authors:  Michael E Albo; Holly E Richter; Linda Brubaker; Peggy Norton; Stephen R Kraus; Philippe E Zimmern; Toby C Chai; Halina Zyczynski; Ananias C Diokno; Sharon Tennstedt; Charles Nager; L Keith Lloyd; MaryPat FitzGerald; Gary E Lemack; Harry W Johnson; Wendy Leng; Veronica Mallett; Anne M Stoddard; Shawn Menefee; R Edward Varner; Kimberly Kenton; Pam Moalli; Larry Sirls; Kimberly J Dandreo; John W Kusek; Leroy M Nyberg; William Steers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Surgical treatment and complications of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  D P Keane; S D Eckford; P Abrams
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 1.927

10.  Healthcare utilization among women who undergo surgery for stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Kraig S Kinchen; Stacey Long; Lucinda Orsini; William Crown; Richard C Bump
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2004-01-31
View more
  35 in total

1.  Population-based trends in ambulatory surgery for urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Anne M Suskind; Samuel R Kaufman; Rodney L Dunn; John T Stoffel; J Quentin Clemens; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Is there still a role for pubovaginal slings in the treatment of SUI in the era of mid-urethral slings?

Authors:  Stephen S Steele
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Trends in inpatient urinary incontinence surgery in the USA, 1998-2007.

Authors:  Jennifer M Wu; Mihir P Gandhi; Aparna D Shah; Jatin Y Shah; Rebekah G Fulton; Alison C Weidner
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Dramatic increase (1997-2007) in the number of procedures for stress urinary incontinence in Belgium.

Authors:  Hendrik Cammu; Freya Saeys; Patrick Haentjens
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Surgery for stress urinary incontinence in Finland 1987-2009.

Authors:  Kaisa Kurkijärvi; Riikka Aaltonen; Mika Gissler; Juha Mäkinen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Predictive Validity of the Beers and Screening Tool of Older Persons' Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) Criteria to Detect Adverse Drug Events, Hospitalizations, and Emergency Department Visits in the United States.

Authors:  Joshua D Brown; Lisa C Hutchison; Chenghui Li; Jacob T Painter; Bradley C Martin
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  5-year longitudinal followup after retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings.

Authors:  Kimberly Kenton; Anne M Stoddard; Halina Zyczynski; Michael Albo; Leslie Rickey; Peggy Norton; Clifford Wai; Stephen R Kraus; Larry T Sirls; John W Kusek; Heather J Litman; Robert P Chang; Holly E Richter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence.

Authors:  Holly E Richter; Michael E Albo; Halina M Zyczynski; Kimberly Kenton; Peggy A Norton; Larry T Sirls; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Gary E Lemack; Kimberly J Dandreo; R Edward Varner; Shawn Menefee; Chiara Ghetti; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Salil Khandwala; Thomas A Rozanski; Harry Johnson; Joseph Schaffer; Anne M Stoddard; Robert L Holley; Charles W Nager; Pamela Moalli; Elizabeth Mueller; Amy M Arisco; Marlene Corton; Sharon Tennstedt; T Debuene Chang; E Ann Gormley; Heather J Litman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  An Internet-based survey to evaluate the comfort and need for further pubovaginal sling training.

Authors:  Neha T Sudol; Sonia Dutta; Felicia Lane
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Sling revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention: long-term risk and predictors.

Authors:  Michele Jonsson Funk; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Virginia Pate; Cindy L Amundsen; Jennifer M Wu
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.