Analysis of British Columbia practice patterns in the management of female stress urinary incontinence with emphasis on mesh use.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Lauren Eggenberger, Lauren Walgren, Sara Houlihan, Alexandra Bascom, Katherine Anderson, Kathleen A Martin Ginis, Jennifer A Locke
{"title":"Analysis of British Columbia practice patterns in the management of female stress urinary incontinence with emphasis on mesh use.","authors":"Lauren Eggenberger, Lauren Walgren, Sara Houlihan, Alexandra Bascom, Katherine Anderson, Kathleen A Martin Ginis, Jennifer A Locke","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common and has a profound impact on quality of life. Suburethral slings are the most common treatment for SUI in this population. These can be placed with synthetic mesh or autologous fascia. Mesh-related complications after midurethral sling procedures are documented in the literature but the risk of complications and reoperation is lower than the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair. In this study, we sought to evaluate local practice patterns of management of female SUI with specific emphasis on mesh use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey created by an expert panel was disseminated to respective provincial societies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight percent of respondents offer midurethral slings in their practice but only 60.6% of these respondents would offer surgical removal of the sling if there were complications, such as mesh erosion or pain. A large portion (39.4%) of respondents are performing transobturator slings as compared to retropubic midurethral slings (36.3%) and only 8.5% have removed the leg component associated with the transobturator sling in their practice. Furthermore, compared to most respondents offering midurethral slings (64.8%), only a minority of surgeons offer alternatives: 23.9% of respondents offer periurethral bulking agent injections, 15.5% offer pubovaginal slings, and 12.7% offer retropubic urethropexies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study supports that surgeons should continue to review surgical risks and alternative treatment options as part of the surgical consent process. As such, surgeons should be able to offer a variety of surgical approaches to manage female SUI.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":"E152-E156"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11152593/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8536","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common and has a profound impact on quality of life. Suburethral slings are the most common treatment for SUI in this population. These can be placed with synthetic mesh or autologous fascia. Mesh-related complications after midurethral sling procedures are documented in the literature but the risk of complications and reoperation is lower than the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair. In this study, we sought to evaluate local practice patterns of management of female SUI with specific emphasis on mesh use.

Methods: A survey created by an expert panel was disseminated to respective provincial societies.

Results: Sixty-eight percent of respondents offer midurethral slings in their practice but only 60.6% of these respondents would offer surgical removal of the sling if there were complications, such as mesh erosion or pain. A large portion (39.4%) of respondents are performing transobturator slings as compared to retropubic midurethral slings (36.3%) and only 8.5% have removed the leg component associated with the transobturator sling in their practice. Furthermore, compared to most respondents offering midurethral slings (64.8%), only a minority of surgeons offer alternatives: 23.9% of respondents offer periurethral bulking agent injections, 15.5% offer pubovaginal slings, and 12.7% offer retropubic urethropexies.

Conclusions: Our study supports that surgeons should continue to review surgical risks and alternative treatment options as part of the surgical consent process. As such, surgeons should be able to offer a variety of surgical approaches to manage female SUI.

不列颠哥伦比亚省女性压力性尿失禁治疗实践模式分析,重点关注网片的使用。
简介女性压力性尿失禁(SUI)很常见,对生活质量影响深远。尿道下腔吊带是治疗 SUI 最常见的方法。尿道下腔吊带可采用合成网片或自体筋膜。文献中记录了尿道中段吊带术后与网片相关的并发症,但并发症和再次手术的风险低于使用经阴道网片进行盆腔器官脱垂修复术。在这项研究中,我们试图评估当地治疗女性 SUI 的实践模式,并特别强调网片的使用:方法:我们向各省学会分发了一份由专家小组制作的调查问卷:68%的受访者在实践中使用尿道中段吊带,但如果出现网片侵蚀或疼痛等并发症,只有 60.6% 的受访者会通过手术切除吊带。与耻骨后尿道中段吊带(36.3%)相比,大多数受访者(39.4%)正在实施经尿道吊带,只有 8.5% 的受访者在实践中移除了与经尿道吊带相关的腿部组件。此外,与大多数提供尿道中段吊带的受访者(64.8%)相比,只有少数外科医生提供替代方案:23.9%的受访者提供尿道周围膨大剂注射,15.5%提供耻骨阴道吊带,12.7%提供耻骨后尿道扩张术:我们的研究表明,外科医生应继续审查手术风险和替代治疗方案,并将其作为手术同意程序的一部分。因此,外科医生应该能够提供多种手术方法来治疗女性 SUI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信