INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our goal was to compare outcomes of repeat vs. primary synthetic slings in patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent a sling for SUI with ISD from 2003 to 2010. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent primary or repeat sling. Surgical success was defined as no incontinence and no reintervention (i.e., urethral bulking) during follow-up. Statistical analysis included the unpaired t test, Wilcoxon rank sums test, chi-squared/Fisher's exact tests, and logistic regression to identify risk factors associated with failure. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-seven patients with ISD underwent a sling procedure at our institution; 557 (87 %) a primary sling and 80 (13 %) a repeat sling. Patient demographics were similar. Preoperatively, patients with recurrent SUI reported more subjective bother. Mean follow-up was 66.5 weeks (24-374). Success was achieved in 81 % of primary compared with 55 % of repeat slings (p<0.0001). Repeat patients were 3.4 times more likely to fail surgery [odds ratio (OR) =3.43, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.1-5.6]. Additionally 30 % of the repeat group underwent urethral bulking postoperatively compared with 8.6 % in the primary group (OR=4.4, 95 % CI 2.5-7.7). Prior incontinence procedures, a positive supine stress test, and transobturator sling were independent risk factors for failure. Among the types of slings placed (transobturator, retropubic, tensioned pubovaginal), pubovaginal slings were most successful (OR=2.7, 95 % CI 1.4-5.2). CONCLUSION: In women with ISD, repeat slings are associated with lower success rates compared with primary slings. Pubovaginal slings resulted in the highest success rate compared with both transobturator and retropubic slings.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our goal was to compare outcomes of repeat vs. primary synthetic slings in patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent a sling for SUI with ISD from 2003 to 2010. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent primary or repeat sling. Surgical success was defined as no incontinence and no reintervention (i.e., urethral bulking) during follow-up. Statistical analysis included the unpaired t test, Wilcoxon rank sums test, chi-squared/Fisher's exact tests, and logistic regression to identify risk factors associated with failure. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-seven patients with ISD underwent a sling procedure at our institution; 557 (87 %) a primary sling and 80 (13 %) a repeat sling. Patient demographics were similar. Preoperatively, patients with recurrent SUI reported more subjective bother. Mean follow-up was 66.5 weeks (24-374). Success was achieved in 81 % of primary compared with 55 % of repeat slings (p<0.0001). Repeatpatients were 3.4 times more likely to fail surgery [odds ratio (OR) =3.43, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.1-5.6]. Additionally 30 % of the repeat group underwent urethral bulking postoperatively compared with 8.6 % in the primary group (OR=4.4, 95 % CI 2.5-7.7). Prior incontinence procedures, a positive supine stress test, and transobturator sling were independent risk factors for failure. Among the types of slings placed (transobturator, retropubic, tensioned pubovaginal), pubovaginal slings were most successful (OR=2.7, 95 % CI 1.4-5.2). CONCLUSION: In women with ISD, repeat slings are associated with lower success rates compared with primary slings. Pubovaginal slings resulted in the highest success rate compared with both transobturator and retropubic slings.
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark Ellerkmann; Sandip Vasavada; Mark D Walters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 8.661
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
Authors: Beatriz Arias; Aimee L Smith; James Raders; Oscar A Aguirre; G Willy Davila Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Alexander Tsivian; Menahem Neuman; Evgeny Yulish; Avraham Shtricker; Samuel Levin; Shmuel Cytron; A Ami Sidi Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2006-04-01
Authors: Kobi Stav; Peter L Dwyer; Anna Rosamilia; Lore Schierlitz; Yik N Lim; Joseph Lee Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-10-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kobi Stav; Peter L Dwyer; Anna Rosamilia; Lore Schierlitz; Yik N Lim; Fay Chao; Alison De Souza; Elizabeth Thomas; Christine Murray; Christine Conway; Joseph Lee Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.450