TY - JOUR
T1 - Does concomitant prolapse repair at the time of midurethral sling affect recurrent rates of incontinence?
AU - Casiano, Elizabeth R.
AU - Gebhart, John B.
AU - McGree, Michaela E.
AU - Weaver, Amy L.
AU - Klingele, Christopher J.
AU - Trabuco, Emanuel C.
PY - 2011/7
Y1 - 2011/7
N2 - Introduction and hypothesis We compared outcomes after midurethral sling (MUS) with and without concomitant repair for prolapse. Methods Women who underwent MUS with or without concomitant repair for prolapse completed a follow-up survey. Outcomes were assessed with validated questionnaires and medical record review. Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards regression, and logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results Of 317 women, 281 (89%) responded to the survey. During a median follow-up of 2.7 years, survival free of "any" incontinence (Incontinence Severity Index score, >0) was similar in both groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; P= 0.77). Women with concomitant repair for advanced prolapse tended to be more bothered by frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78; P=0.08) and more likely to require urethrolysis (odds ratio, 6.11; P=0.04) than those without concomitant pelvic floor repair. Conclusions Prolapse repairs concomitant with MUS did not affect incontinence recurrence. However, repairs may cause increased lower urinary tract symptoms.
AB - Introduction and hypothesis We compared outcomes after midurethral sling (MUS) with and without concomitant repair for prolapse. Methods Women who underwent MUS with or without concomitant repair for prolapse completed a follow-up survey. Outcomes were assessed with validated questionnaires and medical record review. Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards regression, and logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results Of 317 women, 281 (89%) responded to the survey. During a median follow-up of 2.7 years, survival free of "any" incontinence (Incontinence Severity Index score, >0) was similar in both groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; P= 0.77). Women with concomitant repair for advanced prolapse tended to be more bothered by frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78; P=0.08) and more likely to require urethrolysis (odds ratio, 6.11; P=0.04) than those without concomitant pelvic floor repair. Conclusions Prolapse repairs concomitant with MUS did not affect incontinence recurrence. However, repairs may cause increased lower urinary tract symptoms.
KW - Pelvic organ prolapse
KW - Suburethral sling
KW - Urinary stress incontinence
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052484507&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052484507&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00192-011-1367-6
DO - 10.1007/s00192-011-1367-6
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21340646
AN - SCOPUS:80052484507
SN - 0937-3462
VL - 22
SP - 819
EP - 825
JO - International Urogynecology Journal
JF - International Urogynecology Journal
IS - 7
ER -