Melissa Keslar1, Haroutyoun Margossian2, Justin E Katz2, Nisha Lakhi2,3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Richmond University Medical Center, 355 Bard Avenue, Staten Island, NY, 10310, USA. mel.keslar@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Richmond University Medical Center, 355 Bard Avenue, Staten Island, NY, 10310, USA. 3. New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to identify risk factors and urodynamic parameters predictive of mid-urethral sling (MUS) revision surgery that can be used for counseling patients and individualizing risk prediction. METHODS: Retrospective case-control analysis of 40 sling revisions performed during the 12-year study period were compared to 123 control cases that did not require revision to obtain a 1:3 case-to-control ratio. Demographic, perioperative, and urodynamic data were analyzed, with p < 0.05 as significant. Independent predictors of sling revision were assessed by binary logistic regression models, with risk expressed as adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: After multiple regression analysis, younger age at time of index MUS placement (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97), increasing number of cesarean deliveries (CD) (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.01-3.96), and concomitant apical prolapse repair during index MUS procedure (aOR 4.63, 95% CI 1.34-15.93) were significant predictors of sling revision. CONCLUSIONS: Young age at the time of placement, multiple CD, and concomitant apical prolapse repair were independent factors predictive of sling revision. Giving consideration to risk factors could improve patient counseling and surgical candidate selection.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to identify risk factors and urodynamic parameters predictive of mid-urethral sling (MUS) revision surgery that can be used for counseling patients and individualizing risk prediction. METHODS: Retrospective case-control analysis of 40 sling revisions performed during the 12-year study period were compared to 123 control cases that did not require revision to obtain a 1:3 case-to-control ratio. Demographic, perioperative, and urodynamic data were analyzed, with p < 0.05 as significant. Independent predictors of sling revision were assessed by binary logistic regression models, with risk expressed as adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: After multiple regression analysis, younger age at time of index MUS placement (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97), increasing number of cesarean deliveries (CD) (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.01-3.96), and concomitant apical prolapse repair during index MUS procedure (aOR 4.63, 95% CI 1.34-15.93) were significant predictors of sling revision. CONCLUSIONS: Young age at the time of placement, multiple CD, and concomitant apical prolapse repair were independent factors predictive of sling revision. Giving consideration to risk factors could improve patient counseling and surgical candidate selection.
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark Ellerkmann; Sandip Vasavada; Mark D Walters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: P Abrams; K E Andersson; L Birder; L Brubaker; L Cardozo; C Chapple; A Cottenden; W Davila; D de Ridder; R Dmochowski; M Drake; C Dubeau; C Fry; P Hanno; J Hay Smith; S Herschorn; G Hosker; C Kelleher; H Koelbl; S Khoury; R Madoff; I Milsom; K Moore; D Newman; V Nitti; C Norton; I Nygaard; C Payne; A Smith; D Staskin; S Tekgul; J Thuroff; A Tubaro; D Vodusek; A Wein; J J Wyndaele Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Charles W Nager; Larry Sirls; Heather J Litman; Holly Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Toby Chai; Stephen Kraus; Halina Zyczynski; Kim Kenton; Liyuan Huang; John Kusek; Gary Lemack Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michele Jonsson Funk; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Virginia Pate; Cindy L Amundsen; Jennifer M Wu Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Charles W Nager; MaryPat FitzGerald; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Halina Zyczynski; Larry Sirls; Gary E Lemack; L Keith Lloyd; Heather J Litman; Anne M Stoddard; Jan Baker; William Steers Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Sandip Vasavada; Mark Ellerkmann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.661