The impact of concomitant mid-urethral sling surgery on patients undergoing vaginal prolapse repair.
Hospital surgical quality measures
Mid-urethral sling
NSQIP
Stress incontinence
Vaginal prolapse repair
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
04
07
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
pubmed:
14
10
2020
medline:
3
7
2021
entrez:
13
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess whether mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement at the time of vaginal prolapse repair compared to vaginal prolapse repair alone is associated with an increase in 30-day postoperative complications. Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Database, Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify cases of vaginal prolapse repair with and without concomitant MUS from 2012 to 2017. Student's t-test and chi-square test were used to compare differences between the groups. A total of 1469 cases of vaginal prolapse repair with sling were compared to 4566 cases without sling. There was no difference between prolapse repair with sling compared to without sling in mean hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.42 versus 1.32 days, p = 0.65), postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) (6.1% versus 5.8%, p = 0.670), perioperative blood transfusion (1.1% versus 1.2%, p = 0.673), readmission (2.7% versus 2.6%, p = 0.884) and postoperative wound infection (0.5% versus 0.7%, p = 0.51). There was a higher rate of reoperation (2.2% versus 1.5%, p = 0.049) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) (0.4% versus 0.1%, p = 0.030) in patients undergoing concomitant MUS compared to those undergoing prolapse repair alone. Compared to prolapse repair alone, the addition of a sling did not increase hospital LOS, UTI, perioperative blood transfusions, readmission or postoperative wound infections. However, concomitant sling was found to be associated with a higher risk of reoperation and VTE.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33048178
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04544-6
pii: 10.1007/s00192-020-04544-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
681-685Références
Wu JM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286
Olsen AL, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.
doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6
Fialkow MF, et al. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(3):437–40.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0459-9
Borstad E, et al. Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):179–86.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1007-6
Fatton B. Is there any evidence to advocate SUI prevention in continent women undergoing prolapse repair? An overview. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(2):235–45.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0734-4
Clark AL, et al. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1261–7.
doi: 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00829-9
Nager C, et al. Position statement on mesh midurethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(3):123–5.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000097
Administration, F.a.D. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Implants. 2019 6/19/2019]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-and-prosthetics/urogynecologic-surgical-mesh-implants .
Birkmeyer JD, et al. Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(5):777–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.07.018
Wei JT, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111967
Maher C, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.
van der Ploeg JM, et al. Vaginal prolapse repair with or without a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence: a randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1029–38.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2924-1
van der Ploeg JM, et al. Transvaginal prolapse repair with or without the addition of a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2015;122(7):1022–30.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13325
van der Ploeg JM, et al. Prolapse surgery with or without incontinence procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125(3):289–97.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14943
Anger JT, et al. Thromboembolic complications of sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries. Urology. 2009;74(6):1223–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.02.079
Tsai AW, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism incidence: the longitudinal investigation of thromboembolism etiology. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(10):1182–9.
doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.10.1182