Katie Propst1, David M O'Sullivan2, Paul K Tulikangas3. 1. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Women's Health, Hartford Hospital, 85 Seymour Street, Suite 525, Hartford, CT, 06106, USA. katie.propst@hhchealth.org. 2. Research Administration, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA. 3. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Women's Health, Hartford Hospital, 85 Seymour Street, Suite 525, Hartford, CT, 06106, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Hospital readmission is increasingly used as a measure of quality care. Our objective was to evaluate the rate of readmission and associated factors in women undergoing suburethral sling placement in the USA. METHODS: This is a cohort study of suburethral sling procedures performed in the USA from 2012 to 2014 using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The database was queried for suburethral sling procedures. Records were excluded if concomitant surgery had been performed. Patient and surgical characteristics were evaluated for association with readmission using Chi-squared test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. All results yielding p < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 7,117 suburethral sling procedures were identified. There were 83 (1.16%) hospital readmissions. Those who were readmitted tended to be older (p = 0.011), non-Hispanic (p = 0.04), smokers (p < 0.001), and have an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score of 3 or 4 (p = 0.001). A history of bleeding disorder (p < 0.001), congestive heart failure (p < 0.001), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p < 0.001) was associated with readmission. Fifty-four (0.75%) patients underwent reoperation within 30 days of suburethral sling placement. The most common reoperation procedure was sling excision (20 patients). The most common complication was urinary tract infection, which occurred in 189 patients (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Suburethral sling placement is a safe procedure with a low rate of readmissions, reoperations, and complications. Consistent with other types of surgery, infection is the most common post-operative complication.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Hospital readmission is increasingly used as a measure of quality care. Our objective was to evaluate the rate of readmission and associated factors in women undergoing suburethral sling placement in the USA. METHODS: This is a cohort study of suburethral sling procedures performed in the USA from 2012 to 2014 using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The database was queried for suburethral sling procedures. Records were excluded if concomitant surgery had been performed. Patient and surgical characteristics were evaluated for association with readmission using Chi-squared test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. All results yielding p < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 7,117 suburethral sling procedures were identified. There were 83 (1.16%) hospital readmissions. Those who were readmitted tended to be older (p = 0.011), non-Hispanic (p = 0.04), smokers (p < 0.001), and have an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score of 3 or 4 (p = 0.001). A history of bleeding disorder (p < 0.001), congestive heart failure (p < 0.001), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p < 0.001) was associated with readmission. Fifty-four (0.75%) patients underwent reoperation within 30 days of suburethral sling placement. The most common reoperation procedure was sling excision (20 patients). The most common complication was urinary tract infection, which occurred in 189 patients (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Suburethral sling placement is a safe procedure with a low rate of readmissions, reoperations, and complications. Consistent with other types of surgery, infection is the most common post-operative complication.
Authors: John N Nguyen; Sharon M Jakus-Waldman; Andrew J Walter; Terry White; Shawn A Menefee Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Mila H Ju; Jeanette W Chung; Bruce L Hall; Mark E Cohen; Mark V Williams; Thomas C Tsai; Clifford Y Ko; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Arlan Marcus Gustilo-Ashby; Chi Chiung Grace Chen; Petek Kaplan; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Peggy A Norton; Michael E Albo; Toby C Chai; Kimberly J Dandreo; Keith L Lloyd; Jerry L Lowder; Larry T Sirls; Gary E Lemack; Amy M Arisco; Yan Xu; John W Kusek Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Marissa L Bonus; Douglas Luchristt; Oluwateniola Brown; Sarah Collins; Kimberly Kenton; C Emi Bretschneider Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 1.932