Incidence of Midurethral Sling Revision or Removal by Its Timing With Prolapse Surgery.

Sarah Samuel Boyd, Jaime B Long, Edeanya Agbese, Douglas Leslie
{"title":"Incidence of Midurethral Sling Revision or Removal by Its Timing With Prolapse Surgery.","authors":"Sarah Samuel Boyd,&nbsp;Jaime B Long,&nbsp;Edeanya Agbese,&nbsp;Douglas Leslie","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to evaluate incidence of midurethral sling removal/revision based on timing with surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent midurethral sling placement in a claims-based database of women 65 years or older. Three groups were identified using the Current Procedural Terminology codes: (1) isolated sling, (2) concomitant sling, and (3) prolapse surgery and staged sling after prolapse surgery. In the staged group, placement of sling was identified within 18 months after index prolapse surgery. Fascial grafts were excluded. Sling removal/revision was identified across 3 years after sling surgery using Current Procedural Terminology code 57287. Rates of sling removal/revision were calculated by group. Comparisons were made using the χ2 test and analysis of variance. Cumulative incidence of removal/revision was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox proportional hazards was performed to evaluate factors influencing removal/revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 39,381 isolated MUSs, 25,389 concomitant, and 886 staged. The rate of sling removal/revision was 3.52%. Rates of removal/revision differed between groups (7% staged vs 3.94% concomitant vs 3.17% isolated sling, P < 0.001). Compared with the staged group, the rate of removal/revision was lower in the isolated sling group (relative risk, 0.4550; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.358-0.568) and the concomitant group (relative risk, 0.5666; 95% CI, 0.4450-0.7287). After adjusting for patient characteristics, sling revision or removal remained significantly less in the isolated MUS (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.65) and concomitant (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71) groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sling removal/revision is higher when it is staged after prolapse surgery compared with isolated and concomitant placement. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings in a controlled population.</p>","PeriodicalId":520625,"journal":{"name":"Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":"379-384"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate incidence of midurethral sling removal/revision based on timing with surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent midurethral sling placement in a claims-based database of women 65 years or older. Three groups were identified using the Current Procedural Terminology codes: (1) isolated sling, (2) concomitant sling, and (3) prolapse surgery and staged sling after prolapse surgery. In the staged group, placement of sling was identified within 18 months after index prolapse surgery. Fascial grafts were excluded. Sling removal/revision was identified across 3 years after sling surgery using Current Procedural Terminology code 57287. Rates of sling removal/revision were calculated by group. Comparisons were made using the χ2 test and analysis of variance. Cumulative incidence of removal/revision was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox proportional hazards was performed to evaluate factors influencing removal/revision.

Results: We identified 39,381 isolated MUSs, 25,389 concomitant, and 886 staged. The rate of sling removal/revision was 3.52%. Rates of removal/revision differed between groups (7% staged vs 3.94% concomitant vs 3.17% isolated sling, P < 0.001). Compared with the staged group, the rate of removal/revision was lower in the isolated sling group (relative risk, 0.4550; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.358-0.568) and the concomitant group (relative risk, 0.5666; 95% CI, 0.4450-0.7287). After adjusting for patient characteristics, sling revision or removal remained significantly less in the isolated MUS (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.65) and concomitant (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71) groups.

Conclusions: Sling removal/revision is higher when it is staged after prolapse surgery compared with isolated and concomitant placement. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings in a controlled population.

脱垂手术对中尿道吊带修复或移除时机的影响。
目的:本研究的目的是评估盆腔器官脱垂手术中基于时机的中尿道吊带拆除/翻修的发生率。方法:这是一项回顾性队列研究,在一个基于索赔的数据库中,65岁或以上的女性接受了尿道中吊带放置。使用现行程序术语代码确定三组:(1)孤立吊带,(2)伴吊带,(3)脱垂手术和脱垂手术后分阶段吊带。分阶段组在指数脱垂手术后18个月内确定吊带的位置。排除筋膜移植。使用现行程序术语代码57287,在吊带手术后3年内确定吊带移除/修复。各组计算吊带拆除/翻修率。采用χ2检验和方差分析进行比较。使用Kaplan-Meier曲线评估移除/翻修的累积发生率。采用Cox比例风险法评估影响手术切除/翻修的因素。结果:我们确定了39,381例分离的MUSs, 25,389例合并,886例分期。吊带拆除/翻修率为3.52%。两组间的切除/修复率不同(7%分期vs 3.94%合并vs 3.17%孤立吊带,P < 0.001)。与分期组相比,孤立吊带组的移除/翻修率较低(相对危险度,0.4550;95%可信区间[CI], 0.358-0.568)及合并组(相对危险度,0.5666;95% ci, 0.4450-0.7287)。在对患者特征进行调整后,在孤立的MUS中,吊带修复或移除的情况明显较少(风险比,0.50;95% CI, 0.39-0.65)和伴随(优势比,0.55;95% CI, 0.43-0.71)组。结论:脱垂手术后分期取下/修复吊带比单独放置和同时放置吊带效果更好。未来的研究需要在受控人群中证实这些发现。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信