James H Ross1, Charelle M Carter-Brooks2, Kristine M Ruppert3, Lauren E Giugale4, Jonathan P Shepherd5, Halina M Zyczynski4. 1. From the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 3. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Trinity Health Of New England, Hartford, CT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the performance of a previously published stress urinary incontinence (SUI) risk calculator in women undergoing minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions. METHODS: Using a database of stress-continent women who underwent minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions, we calculated 2 prediction risks for development of SUI within 12 months based on inclusion of a "prophylactic" midurethral sling at the time of prolapse surgery. Observed subjective and objective continence status was abstracted from medical records. Regression models were created for the outcome of de novo SUI to generate receiver operating curves. Concordance (c) indices were estimated for the overall and procedure subgroups to determine the calculator's ability to discriminate between SUI outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included 502 women. De novo SUI was observed in 23.5% of women. The mean ± SD calculated risk of de novo SUI if a sling was performed was 18.9% ± 13.9 at 12 months compared with 36.4% ± 8.3 without sling. The calculator's discriminative ability for those with a planned sling was moderate (c-index = 0.55, P = 0.037). The calculator failed to discriminate continence outcomes when a sling was not planned in the overall group (c-index = 0.50, P = 0.799) and individual apical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The SUI risk calculator is significantly limited in its ability to predict de novo SUI in our population of women planning minimally invasive apical suspensions. Refinements to the calculator model are needed to improve its utility in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the performance of a previously published stress urinary incontinence (SUI) risk calculator in women undergoing minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions. METHODS: Using a database of stress-continent women who underwent minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions, we calculated 2 prediction risks for development of SUI within 12 months based on inclusion of a "prophylactic" midurethral sling at the time of prolapse surgery. Observed subjective and objective continence status was abstracted from medical records. Regression models were created for the outcome of de novo SUI to generate receiver operating curves. Concordance (c) indices were estimated for the overall and procedure subgroups to determine the calculator's ability to discriminate between SUI outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included 502 women. De novo SUI was observed in 23.5% of women. The mean ± SD calculated risk of de novo SUI if a sling was performed was 18.9% ± 13.9 at 12 months compared with 36.4% ± 8.3 without sling. The calculator's discriminative ability for those with a planned sling was moderate (c-index = 0.55, P = 0.037). The calculator failed to discriminate continence outcomes when a sling was not planned in the overall group (c-index = 0.50, P = 0.799) and individual apical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The SUI risk calculator is significantly limited in its ability to predict de novo SUI in our population of women planning minimally invasive apical suspensions. Refinements to the calculator model are needed to improve its utility in clinical practice.
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Kevin Chagin; Linda Brubaker; Rebecca G Rogers; Holly E Richter; Lily Arya; Matthew D Barber; Jonathan P Shepherd; Tracy L Nolen; Peggy Norton; Vivian Sung; Shawn Menefee; Nazema Siddiqui; Susan F Meikle; Michael W Kattan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kumar G Prasad; Benton G Nelson; Christopher R Deig; Alexander L Schneider; Michael G Moore Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Yaoming Liu; Jennifer L Paruch; Lynn Zhou; Thomas E Kmiecik; Clifford Y Ko; Mark E Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: John T Wei; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Charles W Nager; Matthew D Barber; Kim Kenton; Cindy L Amundsen; Joseph Schaffer; Susan F Meikle; Cathie Spino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian M Cusworth; Bradley A Krasnick; Timothy M Nywening; Cheryl A Woolsey; Ryan C Fields; Maria M Doyle; Jingxia Liu; William G Hawkins Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Alexander L Schneider; Christopher R Deig; Kumar G Prasad; Benton G Nelson; Avinash V Mantravadi; Joseph S Brigance; Mark P Langer; Mark W McDonald; Peter A Johnstone; Michael G Moore Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Anthony G Visco; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Geoffrey Cundiff; Paul Fine; Halina Zyczynski; Morton B Brown; Anne M Weber Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2008-01-09
Authors: Lauren Giugale; Amaanti Sridhar; Kimberly L Ferrante; Yuko M Komesu; Isuzu Meyer; Ariana L Smith; Deborah Myers; Anthony G Visco; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Marie Gantz; Halina M Zyczynski Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.091