Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without concomitant prolapse repair
- PMID: 24596818
- PMCID: PMC3924735
- DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2014.57.1.50
Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without concomitant prolapse repair
Abstract
Objective: We compared the outcomes of the midurethral sling (MUS) with and without concomitant prolapse repair.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 203 women who underwent MUS at Severance Hospital from January 2009 to April 2012 with and without concomitant prolapse repair. Patients completed the urogenital distress inventory questionnaire preoperatively and postoperatively. The outcomes were assessed by using validated questionnaires and reviewing medical records. McNemar's test, t-test, and multiple logistic regression were used for analysis.
Results: We noted that women who underwent MUS alone were more likely to experience urinary frequency (12% vs. 25%, P = 0.045), urgency (6% vs. 24%, P < 0.001), and bladder emptying difficulty (2% vs. 10%, P = 0.029) compared to those who underwent concomitant repair. Women who only MUS were more likely to experience discomfort in the lower abdominal or genital region compared to those who than those who underwent concomitant repair; however, the difference was not significant (5% vs. 11%, P = 0.181). In the MUS only group, maximal cystometric capacity (MCC) was a significant parameter of preoperative and postoperative urinary frequency (P = 0.042; odds ratio, 0.994; P = 0.020; odds ratio, 0.993), whereas the Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP) was a significant factor of postoperative bladder emptying difficulty (P = 0.047; odds ratio, 0.970).
Conclusion: The outcomes did not differ between patients who underwent MUS alone and those with concomitant repair. In the MUS only group, MCC and VLPP were significant urodynamics study parameters related to urinary outcome.
Keywords: Midurethral slings; Pelvic organ prolapse; Urodynamics.
Conflict of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Figures
References
-
- Botlero R, Urquhart DM, Davis SR, Bell RJ. Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence in women: review of the literature and investigation of methodological issues. Int J Urol. 2008;15:230–234. - PubMed
-
- Keyock KL, Newman DK. Understanding stress urinary incontinence. Nurse Pract. 2011;36:24–36. - PubMed
-
- Novara G, Galfano A, Boscolo-Berto R, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Ficarra V, et al. Complication rates of tension-free midurethral slings in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing tension-free midurethral tapes to other surgical procedures and different devices. Eur Urol. 2008;53:288–308. - PubMed
-
- Novara G, Ficarra V, Boscolo-Berto R, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Tension-free midurethral slings in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of effectiveness. Eur Urol. 2007;52:663–678. - PubMed
-
- Bai SW, Jeon MJ, Kim JY, Chung KA, Kim SK, Park KH. Relationship between stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13:256–260. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous
