Does concomitant prolapse repair at the time of midurethral sling affect recurrent rates of incontinence?

Elizabeth R. Casiano, John B. Gebhart, Michaela E. McGree, Amy L. Weaver, Christopher J. Klingele, Emanuel C. Trabuco

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)819-825
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Urogynecology Journal
Volume22
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Suburethral sling
  • Urinary stress incontinence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Does concomitant prolapse repair at the time of midurethral sling affect recurrent rates of incontinence?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this