OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the long-term risk of sling revision/removal after an initial sling and to assess indications (mesh erosion and urinary retention) and predictors of sling revision/removal. STUDY DESIGN: Using a population-based cohort of commercially insured individuals, we identified women 18 years old or older who underwent a sling (Current Procedural Terminology code 57288) between 2001 and 2010 and any subsequent sling revision/removal (Current Procedural Terminology code 57287). We estimated the cumulative risk of revision/removal annually and evaluated predictors of sling revision/removal using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 188,454 eligible women who underwent an index sling. The 9 year cumulative risk of sling revision/removal was 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-3.9). At 1 year, this risk was already 2.2% and then increased to 3.2% at 4 years before plateauing. With regard to the indication for the sling revision/removal, a greater proportion was due to mesh erosion compared with urinary retention, with a 9 year risk of 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3-2.6) for mesh erosion vs 1.3% (95% CI, 1.2-1.4) for urinary retention. Age had an effect on the revision/removal rates for both mesh erosion and urinary retention, with the higher risks among those aged 18-29 years. The risk of revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention was also elevated among women who had a concomitant anterior or apical prolapse procedure. CONCLUSION: In this population-based analysis, the 9 year risk of sling revision/removal was relatively low at 3.7%, with 60% of revisions/removals caused by mesh erosion.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the long-term risk of sling revision/removal after an initial sling and to assess indications (mesh erosion and urinary retention) and predictors of sling revision/removal. STUDY DESIGN: Using a population-based cohort of commercially insured individuals, we identified women 18 years old or older who underwent a sling (Current Procedural Terminology code 57288) between 2001 and 2010 and any subsequent sling revision/removal (Current Procedural Terminology code 57287). We estimated the cumulative risk of revision/removal annually and evaluated predictors of sling revision/removal using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 188,454 eligible women who underwent an index sling. The 9 year cumulative risk of sling revision/removal was 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-3.9). At 1 year, this risk was already 2.2% and then increased to 3.2% at 4 years before plateauing. With regard to the indication for the sling revision/removal, a greater proportion was due to mesh erosion compared with urinary retention, with a 9 year risk of 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3-2.6) for mesh erosion vs 1.3% (95% CI, 1.2-1.4) for urinary retention. Age had an effect on the revision/removal rates for both mesh erosion and urinary retention, with the higher risks among those aged 18-29 years. The risk of revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention was also elevated among women who had a concomitant anterior or apical prolapse procedure. CONCLUSION: In this population-based analysis, the 9 year risk of sling revision/removal was relatively low at 3.7%, with 60% of revisions/removals caused by mesh erosion.
Authors: Vivian W Sung; Mark D Schleinitz; Charles R Rardin; Renee M Ward; Deborah L Myers Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-07 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: 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: Emily B Rosenfeld; Ladin A Yurteri-Kaplan; Chris Maher; Tony Bazi; Kamil Svabik; Sara Houlihan; Cara L Grimes Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Audra Jolyn Hill; Cecile A Unger; Ellen R Solomon; Jennifer A Brainard; Matthew D Barber Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jerry G Blaivas; Rajveer S Purohit; Matthew S Benedon; Gabriel Mekel; Michael Stern; Mubashir Billah; Kola Olugbade; Robert Bendavid; Vladimir Iakovlev Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Anne M Suskind; J Quentin Clemens; Rodney L Dunn; Yun Zhang; John T Stoffel; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.661