Philippe E Zimmern1, E Ann Gormley2, Anne M Stoddard3, Emily S Lukacz4, Larry Sirls5, Linda Brubaker6, Peggy Norton7, Sallie S Oliphant8, Tracey Wilson9. 1. UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. New England Research Institute, Watertown, Massachusetts. 4. University of California, San Diego, California. 5. Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. 6. Loyola University, Maywood, Illinois. 7. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utha. 8. University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas. 9. University of Alabama at Brimingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
AIMS: To examine treatment options selected for recurrent stress urinary incontinence (rSUI) in follow-up after Burch, autologous fascial and synthetic midurethral sling (MUS) procedures. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the SISTER and ToMUS trials of participants who underwent primary stress urinary incontinence (SUI) treatment (without prior SUI surgery or concomitant procedures). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, retreatment-free survival rates by initial surgical procedure were compared. Mean MESA (Medical Epidemiologic and Social Aspects of Aging) stress index was also compared between those retreated for rSUI compared to those not retreated. RESULTS: Half of the women in the SISTEr trial met inclusion criteria for this analysis (329/655, 174 Burch and 155 fascial sling), as did 444/597 (74%) of subjects in ToMUS (221 transobturator midurethral sling (TMUS), and 223 retropubic midurethral sling (RMUS). Types of surgical retreatment included autologous fascial sling (19), synthetic sling (1), and bulking agent (18). Five-year retreatment free survival rates (and standard errors) were 87% (3%), 96% (2%), 97% (1%), and 99% (0.7%) for Burch, autologous fascial sling, TMUS, and RMUS groups respectively (P < 0.0001). For all index surgery groups, the mean MESA stress index at last visit prior to retreatment for those retreated (n = 23) was significantly higher than mean MESA stress index at last visit for those not retreated (n = 645) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In these cohorts, 6% of women after standard anti-incontinence procedures were retreated within 5 years, mostly with injection therapy or autologous fascial sling. Not all women with rSUI chose surgical retreatment.
AIMS: To examine treatment options selected for recurrent stress urinary incontinence (rSUI) in follow-up after Burch, autologous fascial and synthetic midurethral sling (MUS) procedures. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the SISTER and ToMUS trials of participants who underwent primary stress urinary incontinence (SUI) treatment (without prior SUI surgery or concomitant procedures). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, retreatment-free survival rates by initial surgical procedure were compared. Mean MESA (Medical Epidemiologic and Social Aspects of Aging) stress index was also compared between those retreated for rSUI compared to those not retreated. RESULTS: Half of the women in the SISTEr trial met inclusion criteria for this analysis (329/655, 174 Burch and 155 fascial sling), as did 444/597 (74%) of subjects in ToMUS (221 transobturator midurethral sling (TMUS), and 223 retropubic midurethral sling (RMUS). Types of surgical retreatment included autologous fascial sling (19), synthetic sling (1), and bulking agent (18). Five-year retreatment free survival rates (and standard errors) were 87% (3%), 96% (2%), 97% (1%), and 99% (0.7%) for Burch, autologous fascial sling, TMUS, and RMUS groups respectively (P < 0.0001). For all index surgery groups, the mean MESA stress index at last visit prior to retreatment for those retreated (n = 23) was significantly higher than mean MESA stress index at last visit for those not retreated (n = 645) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In these cohorts, 6% of women after standard anti-incontinence procedures were retreated within 5 years, mostly with injection therapy or autologous fascial sling. Not all women with rSUI chose surgical retreatment.
Authors: Miles Murphy; Adam Holzberg; Heather van Raalte; Neeraj Kohli; Howard B Goldman; Vincent Lucente Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Evangelia Bakali; Eugenie Johnson; Brian S Buckley; Paul Hilton; Ben Walker; Douglas G Tincello Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Stefan Mohr; Christine Marthaler; Sara Imboden; Ash Monga; Michel D Mueller; Annette Kuhn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jordi Sabadell; Anabel Montero-Armengol; Nuria Rodríguez-Mias; Sabina Salicrú; Antonio Gil-Moreno; Jose L Poza Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: L Clark; B Fitzgerald; S Noble; S MacNeill; S Paramasivan; N Cotterill; H Hashim; S Jha; P Toozs-Hobson; T Greenwell; N Thiruchelvam; W Agur; A White; V Garner; M Cobos-Arrivabene; C Clement; M Cochrane; Y Liu; A L Lewis; J Taylor; J A Lane; M J Drake; C Pope Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 2.728