Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair

Gwen M. Grimsby, Mark D. Tyson, Christopher E. Wolter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: To compare the outcome of single incision and retropubic midurethral slings when performed with and without concomitant repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all midurethral slings performed with and without concomitant POP repair by a single provider from September 2008 to April 2010. Prolapse was repaired transvaginally with light-weight polypropylene mesh or robotically via sacrocolpopexy based on the nature of the prolapse and surgeon preference. Success of the sling procedure was defined as complete resolution of leakage or great improvement of leakage based on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement score. Results: Eighty-nine patients underwent a midurethral sling procedure. Forty-five patients received a single incision sling, 18 of which had concomitant POP repair. Forty-four received a retropubic sling, 16 of which had concomitant POP repair. Successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling group was 89% (24/27) which was not significantly different from the retropubic only sling group 93% (26/28), p = 0.61. However, a significant difference was seen in the successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling plus prolapse repair group 67% (12/18) versus the retropubic sling plus prolapse repair group 94% (15/16), p = 0.05. Conclusion: We found a higher incidence of single incision mid-urethral sling failure when done at the same time as repair of pelvic organ prolapse in comparison to sling placement alone. There is no difference in the success of retropubic slings when done with or without concomitant prolapse repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)6927-6932
Number of pages6
JournalCanadian Journal of Urology
Volume20
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Suburethral Slings
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Prolapse
Polypropylenes
Weights and Measures
Incidence
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Midurethral sling
  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Stress urinary incontinence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Grimsby, G. M., Tyson, M. D., & Wolter, C. E. (2013). Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair. Canadian Journal of Urology, 20(5), 6927-6932.

Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair. / Grimsby, Gwen M.; Tyson, Mark D.; Wolter, Christopher E.

In: Canadian Journal of Urology, Vol. 20, No. 5, 10.2013, p. 6927-6932.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Grimsby, GM, Tyson, MD & Wolter, CE 2013, 'Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair', Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 6927-6932.
Grimsby, Gwen M. ; Tyson, Mark D. ; Wolter, Christopher E. / Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair. In: Canadian Journal of Urology. 2013 ; Vol. 20, No. 5. pp. 6927-6932.
@article{915fdb45fc7643108aa16ea1f6971696,
title = "Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair",
abstract = "Introduction: To compare the outcome of single incision and retropubic midurethral slings when performed with and without concomitant repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all midurethral slings performed with and without concomitant POP repair by a single provider from September 2008 to April 2010. Prolapse was repaired transvaginally with light-weight polypropylene mesh or robotically via sacrocolpopexy based on the nature of the prolapse and surgeon preference. Success of the sling procedure was defined as complete resolution of leakage or great improvement of leakage based on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement score. Results: Eighty-nine patients underwent a midurethral sling procedure. Forty-five patients received a single incision sling, 18 of which had concomitant POP repair. Forty-four received a retropubic sling, 16 of which had concomitant POP repair. Successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling group was 89{\%} (24/27) which was not significantly different from the retropubic only sling group 93{\%} (26/28), p = 0.61. However, a significant difference was seen in the successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling plus prolapse repair group 67{\%} (12/18) versus the retropubic sling plus prolapse repair group 94{\%} (15/16), p = 0.05. Conclusion: We found a higher incidence of single incision mid-urethral sling failure when done at the same time as repair of pelvic organ prolapse in comparison to sling placement alone. There is no difference in the success of retropubic slings when done with or without concomitant prolapse repair.",
keywords = "Midurethral sling, Pelvic organ prolapse, Stress urinary incontinence",
author = "Grimsby, {Gwen M.} and Tyson, {Mark D.} and Wolter, {Christopher E.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "6927--6932",
journal = "Canadian Journal of Urology",
issn = "1195-9479",
publisher = "Canadian Journal of Urology",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of midurethral sling outcomes with and without prolapse repair

AU - Grimsby, Gwen M.

AU - Tyson, Mark D.

AU - Wolter, Christopher E.

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Introduction: To compare the outcome of single incision and retropubic midurethral slings when performed with and without concomitant repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all midurethral slings performed with and without concomitant POP repair by a single provider from September 2008 to April 2010. Prolapse was repaired transvaginally with light-weight polypropylene mesh or robotically via sacrocolpopexy based on the nature of the prolapse and surgeon preference. Success of the sling procedure was defined as complete resolution of leakage or great improvement of leakage based on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement score. Results: Eighty-nine patients underwent a midurethral sling procedure. Forty-five patients received a single incision sling, 18 of which had concomitant POP repair. Forty-four received a retropubic sling, 16 of which had concomitant POP repair. Successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling group was 89% (24/27) which was not significantly different from the retropubic only sling group 93% (26/28), p = 0.61. However, a significant difference was seen in the successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling plus prolapse repair group 67% (12/18) versus the retropubic sling plus prolapse repair group 94% (15/16), p = 0.05. Conclusion: We found a higher incidence of single incision mid-urethral sling failure when done at the same time as repair of pelvic organ prolapse in comparison to sling placement alone. There is no difference in the success of retropubic slings when done with or without concomitant prolapse repair.

AB - Introduction: To compare the outcome of single incision and retropubic midurethral slings when performed with and without concomitant repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all midurethral slings performed with and without concomitant POP repair by a single provider from September 2008 to April 2010. Prolapse was repaired transvaginally with light-weight polypropylene mesh or robotically via sacrocolpopexy based on the nature of the prolapse and surgeon preference. Success of the sling procedure was defined as complete resolution of leakage or great improvement of leakage based on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement score. Results: Eighty-nine patients underwent a midurethral sling procedure. Forty-five patients received a single incision sling, 18 of which had concomitant POP repair. Forty-four received a retropubic sling, 16 of which had concomitant POP repair. Successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling group was 89% (24/27) which was not significantly different from the retropubic only sling group 93% (26/28), p = 0.61. However, a significant difference was seen in the successful treatment of SUI in the single incision sling plus prolapse repair group 67% (12/18) versus the retropubic sling plus prolapse repair group 94% (15/16), p = 0.05. Conclusion: We found a higher incidence of single incision mid-urethral sling failure when done at the same time as repair of pelvic organ prolapse in comparison to sling placement alone. There is no difference in the success of retropubic slings when done with or without concomitant prolapse repair.

KW - Midurethral sling

KW - Pelvic organ prolapse

KW - Stress urinary incontinence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888172981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888172981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 24128831

AN - SCOPUS:84888172981

VL - 20

SP - 6927

EP - 6932

JO - Canadian Journal of Urology

JF - Canadian Journal of Urology

SN - 1195-9479

IS - 5

ER -