Literature DB >> 21683412

Baseline urodynamic predictors of treatment failure 1 year after mid urethral sling surgery.

Charles W Nager1, Larry Sirls, Heather J Litman, Holly Richter, Ingrid Nygaard, Toby Chai, Stephen Kraus, Halina Zyczynski, Kim Kenton, Liyuan Huang, John Kusek, Gary Lemack.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined whether baseline urodynamic study variables predict failure after mid urethral sling surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative urodynamic study variables and postoperative continence status were analyzed in women participating in a randomized trial comparing retropubic to transobturator mid urethral sling. Objective failure was defined by positive standardized stress test, 15 ml or greater on 24-hour pad test, or re-treatment for stress urinary incontinence. Subjective failure criteria were self-reported stress symptoms, leakage on 3-day diary or re-treatment for stress urinary incontinence. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between covariates and failure controlling for treatment group and clinical variables. Receiver operator curves were constructed for relationships between objective failure and measures of urethral function.
RESULTS: Objective continence outcomes were available at 12 months for 565 of 597 (95%) women. Treatment failed in 260 women (245 by subjective criteria, 124 by objective criteria). No urodynamic variable was significantly associated with subjective failure on multivariate analysis. Valsalva leak point pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure and urodynamic stress incontinence were the only urodynamic variables consistently associated with objective failure on multivariate analysis. No specific cut point was determined for predicting failure for Valsalva leak point pressure or maximum urethral closure pressure by ROC. The lowest quartile (Valsalva leak point pressure less than 86 cm H2O, maximum urethral closure pressure less than 45 cm H2O) conferred an almost 2-fold increased odds of objective failure regardless of sling route (OR 2.23, 1.20-4.14 for Valsalva leak point pressure and OR 1.88, 1.04-3.41 for maximum urethral closure pressure).
CONCLUSIONS: Women with a Valsalva leak point pressure or maximum urethral closure pressure in the lowest quartile are nearly 2-fold more likely to experience stress urinary incontinence 1 year after transobturator or retropubic mid urethral sling.
Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21683412      PMCID: PMC3808887          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  24 in total

1.  A comparison of urethral pressure profilometry using microtip and double-lumen perfusion catheters in women with genuine stress incontinence.

Authors:  Alex C Wang; Min-Chi Chen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies.

Authors:  Werner Schäfer; Paul Abrams; Limin Liao; Anders Mattiasson; Francesco Pesce; Anders Spangberg; Arthur M Sterling; Norman R Zinner; Philip van Kerrebroeck
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.696

Review 3.  Transobturator and retropubic tape procedures in stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications.

Authors:  P M Latthe; R Foon; P Toozs-Hobson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2007-03-16       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. International Continence Society Subcommittee on Standardization of Terminology of Pressure-Flow Studies.

Authors:  D Griffiths; K Höfner; R van Mastrigt; H J Rollema; A Spångberg; D Gleason
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.696

5.  Surgical therapeutic index of tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator tape for stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Myung Jae Jeon; Da Jung Chung; Joo Hyun Park; Sei Kwang Kim; Jae Wook Kim; Sang Wook Bai
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 6.  Urinary incontinence: medical and psychosocial aspects.

Authors:  A R Herzog; A C Diokno; N H Fultz
Journal:  Annu Rev Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  1989

7.  Risk factors affecting cure after mid-urethral tape procedure for female urodynamic stress incontinence: comparison of retropubic and transobturator routes.

Authors:  Sheng-Mou Hsiao; Ting-Chen Chang; Ho-Hsiung Lin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Tension-free vaginal tape versus transobturator tape as surgery for stress urinary incontinence: results of a multicentre randomised trial.

Authors:  Massimo Porena; Elisabetta Costantini; Bruno Frea; Antonella Giannantoni; Stefania Ranzoni; Luigi Mearini; Vittorio Bini; Ervin Kocjancic
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-04-27       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Predictive value of urodynamics on outcome after midurethral sling surgery for female stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  R Marijn Houwert; Pieter L Venema; Annelies E Aquarius; Hein W Bruinse; Paul J M Kil; Harry A M Vervest
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  The tension-free vaginal tape in women with a non-hypermobile urethra and low maximum urethral closure pressure.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Clemons; Christine A LaSala
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-11-11
View more
  24 in total

1.  Preoperative clinical, demographic, and urodynamic measures associated with failure to demonstrate urodynamic stress incontinence in women enrolled in two randomized clinical trials of surgery for stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Gary E Lemack; Heather J Litman; Charles Nager; Linda Brubaker; Jerry Lowder; Peggy Norton; Larry Sirls; Keith Lloyd; John W Kusek
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Do urodynamic parameters predict persistent postoperative stress incontinence after midurethral sling? A systematic review.

Authors:  Amie Kawasaki; Jennifer M Wu; Cindy L Amundsen; Alison C Weidner; John P Judd; Ethan M Balk; Nazema Y Siddiqui
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  [Complication management in prolapse and incontinence surgery].

Authors:  C Hampel; F Roos; A Neisius; J W Thüroff; C Thomas
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Intrinsic sphincter deficiency: what is it and does it matter anymore?

Authors:  Steven Swift
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  The role of fascial slings in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: a 2013 update.

Authors:  Jack C Hou; Gary E Lemack
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Should maximal urethral closure pressure be performed before midurethral sling surgery for stress incontinence? A time to revisit.

Authors:  Monika Vij; Anupreet Dua; Robert M Freeman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  What causes stress incontinence: Fallacies, fascias and facts.

Authors:  John Delancey
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  An inelastic retropubic suburethral sling in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency.

Authors:  Alfredo Jijon; Aparna Hegde; Beatriz Arias; Vivian Aguilar; G Willy Davila
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 9.  Surgical management of female SUI: is there a gold standard?

Authors:  Ashley Cox; Sender Herschorn; Livia Lee
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  Retropubic versus transobturator slings--are the outcomes changing with time?

Authors:  Paholo G Barboglio; E Ann Gormley
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.