Tae Heon Kim1, Hyun Wook You1, Dong-Soo Ryu2, Kyu-Sung Lee3,4. 1. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Republic of Korea. ksleedr@skku.edu. 4. Department of Medical Device Management & Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea. ksleedr@skku.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although there is no consensus on the management of persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after placement of a midurethral synthetic sling (MUS), a repeat MUS procedure is commonly performed with favorable results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a repeat MUS procedure compared to the primary procedure in women with SUI, and to investigate factors associated with the failure of the repeat procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 53 women who underwent a repeat MUS procedure and 102 women who underwent a primary MUS procedure at a single center. Success was defined as no urine leakage during physical activity based on the Sandvik questionnaire. Outcomes were assessed using the Sandvik Severity Index and Incontinence-Quality of Life (I-QOL) questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors predicting failure of the repeat procedure. RESULTS: The success rate was 76.5 % for the primary MUS procedure (78/102 patients) and 69.8 % for the repeat MUS procedure (37/53 patients; p = 0.369). The mean follow-up duration was significantly longer for the primary procedure (83.8 months vs. 54.6 months, p < 0.001). SUI and all domain scores of the I-QOL were significantly better following the repeat MUS procedure than following the primary procedure. In the multivariate analysis, SUI grade 3 was the only independent factor predicting failure of the repeat qq (odds ratio 7.610, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: A repeat MUS procedure after a failed primary MUS procedure was shown to be effective. However, a repeat procedure may be unsuccessful in patients with grade 3 SUI.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Although there is no consensus on the management of persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after placement of a midurethral synthetic sling (MUS), a repeat MUS procedure is commonly performed with favorable results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a repeat MUS procedure compared to the primary procedure in women with SUI, and to investigate factors associated with the failure of the repeat procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 53 women who underwent a repeat MUS procedure and 102 women who underwent a primary MUS procedure at a single center. Success was defined as no urine leakage during physical activity based on the Sandvik questionnaire. Outcomes were assessed using the Sandvik Severity Index and Incontinence-Quality of Life (I-QOL) questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors predicting failure of the repeat procedure. RESULTS: The success rate was 76.5 % for the primary MUS procedure (78/102 patients) and 69.8 % for the repeat MUS procedure (37/53 patients; p = 0.369). The mean follow-up duration was significantly longer for the primary procedure (83.8 months vs. 54.6 months, p < 0.001). SUI and all domain scores of the I-QOL were significantly better following the repeat MUS procedure than following the primary procedure. In the multivariate analysis, SUI grade 3 was the only independent factor predicting failure of the repeat qq (odds ratio 7.610, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: A repeat MUS procedure after a failed primary MUS procedure was shown to be effective. However, a repeat procedure may be unsuccessful in patients with grade 3 SUI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prostheses and implants; Reoperation; Stress; Urinary incontinence
Authors: Maurizio Serati; Ricarda Bauer; Jean Nicolas Cornu; Elena Cattoni; Andrea Braga; Gabriele Siesto; Daphné Lizée; François Haab; Marco Torella; Stefano Salvatore Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alison M Parden; Jonathan L Gleason; Victoria Jauk; Rachel Garner; Alicia Ballard; Holly E Richter Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.661