Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Efficacy of Repeat Midurethral Sling for Persistent or Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Fellows Pelvic Research Network Study.

MedStar author(s):

2151-8378

Name of journal: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgeryAbstract: CONCLUSIONS: Majority of patients are very much better or much better after RMUS, although 30% still report bothersome SUI. No difference in success was observed between RP and TO RMUS.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up of patients undergoing RMUS from 2003 to 2016. Prospective Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) were collected by phone. Primary outcome was success of repeat sling by approach (RP vs TO), defined as responses of no to UDI-6 number 3 and very much better or much better on PGI-I.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare quality of life and success rates of repeat midurethral slings (RMUS) using retropubic (RP) and transobturator (TO) routes.RESULTS: A total of 122 patients prospectively completed UDI-6. Average +/- SD time to failure after initial sling was 51.6 +/- 56.1 months; mean follow-up after repeat sling was 30.7 months. Route of initial sling was RP 30.3%, TO 49.2%, and minisling 16.4%. Of the patients, 55.8% met our success definition following RMUS. About 71.3% were very much better or much better on PGI-I, and 30.3% reported stress urinary incontinence (SUI) on UDI-6. Of the RMUS, 73.8% were RP versus 26.2% TO.There was no difference in success between repeat RP and TO routes (53.3% versus 63.3%, P = 0.34), nor for individual components: PGI-I response of very much better or much better (68.9% vs 78.1%), UDI-6 total score (25.9 vs 22.7, P = 0.29), or SUI on UDI-6 number 3 (32.2% vs 25.0%, P = 0.45), although the predetermined sample size was not met. No predictors of success or failure of RMUS were identified.All authors: Adams-Piper EE, Antosh DD, Chan RC, Chu CM, Dave BA, Gutman RE, Smithling KR, Tran AMOriginally published: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 25(6):430-433, 2019 Nov/Dec.Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000598

Date added to catalog: 2019-11-19

Holdings ( 1 )
Title notes ( 5 )

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Journal Article	MedStar Authors Catalog	Article	30694873	Available		30694873

CONCLUSIONS: Majority of patients are very much better or much better after RMUS, although 30% still report bothersome SUI. No difference in success was observed between RP and TO RMUS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up of patients undergoing RMUS from 2003 to 2016. Prospective Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) were collected by phone. Primary outcome was success of repeat sling by approach (RP vs TO), defined as responses of no to UDI-6 number 3 and very much better or much better on PGI-I.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare quality of life and success rates of repeat midurethral slings (RMUS) using retropubic (RP) and transobturator (TO) routes.

RESULTS: A total of 122 patients prospectively completed UDI-6. Average +/- SD time to failure after initial sling was 51.6 +/- 56.1 months; mean follow-up after repeat sling was 30.7 months. Route of initial sling was RP 30.3%, TO 49.2%, and minisling 16.4%. Of the patients, 55.8% met our success definition following RMUS. About 71.3% were very much better or much better on PGI-I, and 30.3% reported stress urinary incontinence (SUI) on UDI-6. Of the RMUS, 73.8% were RP versus 26.2% TO.There was no difference in success between repeat RP and TO routes (53.3% versus 63.3%, P = 0.34), nor for individual components: PGI-I response of very much better or much better (68.9% vs 78.1%), UDI-6 total score (25.9 vs 22.7, P = 0.29), or SUI on UDI-6 number 3 (32.2% vs 25.0%, P = 0.45), although the predetermined sample size was not met. No predictors of success or failure of RMUS were identified.

English