INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement. METHODS: This multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision. RESULTS: Of the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.79; p = 0.004) retropubic sling type (OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.08-4.78; p = 0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR = 4.88, 95% CI 2.16-11.05; p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement. METHODS: This multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision. RESULTS: Of the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.79; p = 0.004) retropubic sling type (OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.08-4.78; p = 0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR = 4.88, 95% CI 2.16-11.05; p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.
Authors: Emily S Lukacz; Jean M Lawrence; J Galen Buckwalter; Raoul J Burchette; Charles W Nager; Karl M Luber Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2005-04-26
Authors: Eman A Elkadry; Kimberly S Kenton; Mary P FitzGerald; Susan Shott; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.661
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
Authors: Allen F Morey; Andrew R Medendorp; Mark W Noller; Rafael V Mora; Kevin C Shandera; John P Foley; Luis R Rivera; Juan A Reyna; Patricia J Terry Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Sandip Vasavada; Mark Ellerkmann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mary M T South; Jennifer M Wu; George D Webster; Alison C Weidner; Jennifer J Roelands; Cindy L Amundsen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Thomas L Wheeler; Holly E Richter; W Jerod Greer; C Bryce Bowling; David T Redden; R Edward Varner Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Amie Kawasaki; Autumn L Edenfield; Anthony G Visco; Jennifer M Wu; Daniel Westreich; Nazema Y Siddiqui Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Eugene Hwang; Ju Hyun Shin; Jae Sung Lim; Ki Hak Song; Chong Koo Sul; Yong Gil Na Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 2.894