Liv Rimstad Moksnes1, Rune Svenningsen1, Hjalmar A Schiøtz2, Kjartan Moe3, Anne C Staff1,3, Sigurd Kulseng-Hanssen4. 1. Department of Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vestfold Hospital, Tønsberg, Norway. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baerum Hospital, Baerum, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare intermittent catheterization, sling mobilization, and sling transection for treatment of urinary retention after mid-urethral sling surgery. METHODS: Data registered in the Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry from 1998 to 2013 were analyzed in this cohort study to compare subjective and objective outcomes after intermittent catheterization, sling mobilization, and sling transection as management of postoperative urinary retention after mid urethral sling surgery. Subjective outcomes were degree of symptom bother and the percentage of women stating "very satisfied" at the postoperative follow-up. The objective outcome was leakage at a cough-jump pad stress test. RESULTS: Intervention due to urinary retention was performed in 585 of 18,772 women (3.1%). Women who had their sling mobilized or had intermittent catheterization, scored better on all postoperative outcomes than those who had their sling transected (P < 0.001). Sling transection was more often needed after intermittent catheterization than after mobilization (P = 0.023). No outcome differences were found between intermittent catheterization only and sling mobilization only. Intention to treat analysis showed that women who underwent sling mobilization as the primary procedure significantly more often had a negative stress test (P = 0.033) and were more often "very satisfied" with the treatment (P = 0.006) than those who were primarily catheterized. CONCLUSIONS: Sling mobilization is a more successful treatment than intermittent catheterization or transection for urinary retention after mid-urethral sling surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration was not applicable because this study is based on an analysis of anonymous data from The Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry. Neurourol. Urodynam. 36:1091-1096, 2017.
OBJECTIVE: To compare intermittent catheterization, sling mobilization, and sling transection for treatment of urinary retention after mid-urethral sling surgery. METHODS: Data registered in the Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry from 1998 to 2013 were analyzed in this cohort study to compare subjective and objective outcomes after intermittent catheterization, sling mobilization, and sling transection as management of postoperative urinary retention after mid urethral sling surgery. Subjective outcomes were degree of symptom bother and the percentage of women stating "very satisfied" at the postoperative follow-up. The objective outcome was leakage at a cough-jump pad stress test. RESULTS: Intervention due to urinary retention was performed in 585 of 18,772 women (3.1%). Women who had their sling mobilized or had intermittent catheterization, scored better on all postoperative outcomes than those who had their sling transected (P < 0.001). Sling transection was more often needed after intermittent catheterization than after mobilization (P = 0.023). No outcome differences were found between intermittent catheterization only and sling mobilization only. Intention to treat analysis showed that women who underwent sling mobilization as the primary procedure significantly more often had a negative stress test (P = 0.033) and were more often "very satisfied" with the treatment (P = 0.006) than those who were primarily catheterized. CONCLUSIONS: Sling mobilization is a more successful treatment than intermittent catheterization or transection for urinary retention after mid-urethral sling surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration was not applicable because this study is based on an analysis of anonymous data from The Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry. Neurourol. Urodynam. 36:1091-1096, 2017.