Una J Lee1, Lydia Feinstein2, Julia B Ward2, Brian R Matlaga3, Chyng-Wen Fwu2, Tamara Bavendam4, Ziya Kirkali4, Kathleen C Kobashi1. 1. Section of Urology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 2. Social & Scientific Systems, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to examine national trends in the surgical management of urinary incontinence in women in the United States from 2004 to 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the CDM (Optum® de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart) for women 18 to 64 years old and the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Medicare 5% Sample for women 65 years old or older. We created annual cross-sectional cohorts and assessed trends in the annual prevalence of urinary incontinence related surgical procedures overall and by age, race/ethnicity and geographic region. RESULTS: We observed a decline in the percent of women with urinary incontinence who underwent surgical treatment according to the CMS (from 4.7% in 2004 to 2.7% in 2013) and the CDM (from 12.5% in 2004 to 9.1% in 2013). This trend persisted independently of age, race/ethnicity and geographic region. Slings were the most common procedure but started to decline in 2011, ultimately decreasing by about 50% during the study period. Compared to other groups the prevalence of urinary incontinence related surgical procedures, including slings, was highest among women 35 to 54 years old and White women, and lowest among women residing in the Northeast. These sociodemographic patterns persisted with time. During the study period injection procedures remained stable, sacral neuromodulation increased slightly but remained uncommon and suspension decreased to nearly 0% of all anti-incontinence procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of female urinary incontinence experienced several shifts from 2004 to 2013, including a decline in sling procedures. Age, racial/ethnic and regional differences in treatment persisted with time. Improved understanding of the drivers of these trends may help direct future development of treatments of pelvic floor disorders.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to examine national trends in the surgical management of urinary incontinence in women in the United States from 2004 to 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the CDM (Optum® de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart) for women 18 to 64 years old and the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Medicare 5% Sample for women 65 years old or older. We created annual cross-sectional cohorts and assessed trends in the annual prevalence of urinary incontinence related surgical procedures overall and by age, race/ethnicity and geographic region. RESULTS: We observed a decline in the percent of women with urinary incontinence who underwent surgical treatment according to the CMS (from 4.7% in 2004 to 2.7% in 2013) and the CDM (from 12.5% in 2004 to 9.1% in 2013). This trend persisted independently of age, race/ethnicity and geographic region. Slings were the most common procedure but started to decline in 2011, ultimately decreasing by about 50% during the study period. Compared to other groups the prevalence of urinary incontinence related surgical procedures, including slings, was highest among women 35 to 54 years old and White women, and lowest among women residing in the Northeast. These sociodemographic patterns persisted with time. During the study period injection procedures remained stable, sacral neuromodulation increased slightly but remained uncommon and suspension decreased to nearly 0% of all anti-incontinence procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of female urinary incontinence experienced several shifts from 2004 to 2013, including a decline in sling procedures. Age, racial/ethnic and regional differences in treatment persisted with time. Improved understanding of the drivers of these trends may help direct future development of treatments of pelvic floor disorders.
Authors: Claire S Burton; Gabriela Gonzalez; Eunice Choi; Catherine Bresee; Teryl K Nuckols; Karyn S Eilber; Neil S Wenger; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 5.928
Authors: Una J Lee; Julia B Ward; Lydia Feinstein; Brian R Matlaga; Erline Martinez-Miller; Tamara Bavendam; Ziya Kirkali; Kathleen C Kobashi Journal: Urology Date: 2020-12-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sara Z Dejene; Michele Jonsson Funk; Virginia Pate; Jennifer M Wu Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 1.913