Sarah E Steele1, Audra J Hill2, Cecile A Unger3. 1. Center for Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. steeles5@ccf.org. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. Center for Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Limited evidence guides operative technique in primary midurethral sling (MUS) lysis or excision at the time of repeat sling placement for persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Our objective is to compare subjective improvement in patients undergoing repeat MUS placement with and without concurrent primary sling lysis or removal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study with a prospective survey of patients who underwent two MUS placements for SUI at a single institution from January 1996 to December 2015. After patient identification, the electronic record was queried for demographic and perioperative data. Subjects then completed the Urogenital Distress Index, (UDI-6), Incontinence Severity Index (ISI), and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7). Subjects were also asked if they would choose to undergo repeat MUS surgery again. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included. 17 out of 61 (28%) underwent concomitant primary sling lysis or excision, and 44 out of 61 (72%) did not. Fifty-seven percent (n = 35) completed the survey. Of the respondents, the median ISI score was 4 (1-8), with no difference between groups; 14 out of 35 (40%) reported the presence of bothersome urge incontinence, 11 out of 35 (31%) reported bothersome stress urinary incontinence, and 8 out of 35 (23%) reported symptoms of voiding dysfunction, with no difference between groups. 57% of patients (20 out of 35) would undergo repeat MUS placement again. CONCLUSIONS: In a small cohort, concurrent excision of the primary sling at the time of repeat MUS did not improve subjective outcomes. Many patients reported urinary urgency and voiding symptoms, and only about half of patients would choose to undergo the surgery again if given the choice.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Limited evidence guides operative technique in primary midurethral sling (MUS) lysis or excision at the time of repeat sling placement for persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Our objective is to compare subjective improvement in patients undergoing repeat MUS placement with and without concurrent primary sling lysis or removal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study with a prospective survey of patients who underwent two MUS placements for SUI at a single institution from January 1996 to December 2015. After patient identification, the electronic record was queried for demographic and perioperative data. Subjects then completed the Urogenital Distress Index, (UDI-6), Incontinence Severity Index (ISI), and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7). Subjects were also asked if they would choose to undergo repeat MUS surgery again. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included. 17 out of 61 (28%) underwent concomitant primary sling lysis or excision, and 44 out of 61 (72%) did not. Fifty-seven percent (n = 35) completed the survey. Of the respondents, the median ISI score was 4 (1-8), with no difference between groups; 14 out of 35 (40%) reported the presence of bothersome urge incontinence, 11 out of 35 (31%) reported bothersome stress urinary incontinence, and 8 out of 35 (23%) reported symptoms of voiding dysfunction, with no difference between groups. 57% of patients (20 out of 35) would undergo repeat MUS placement again. CONCLUSIONS: In a small cohort, concurrent excision of the primary sling at the time of repeat MUS did not improve subjective outcomes. Many patients reported urinary urgency and voiding symptoms, and only about half of patients would choose to undergo the surgery again if given the choice.
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Maarten J van der Doelen; Mariëlla I J Withagen; Mark E Vierhout; John P F A Heesakkers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-03-10 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