Effects of concomitant surgeries during midurethral slings (mus) on postoperative complications, voiding dysfunction, continence outcomes, and urodynamic variables

Toby C. Chai, Kimberly Kenton, Yan Xu, Larry Sirls, Halina Zyczynski, Tracey S. Wilson, David D. Rahn, Emily L. Whitcomb, Yvonne Hsu, Elizabeth A. Gormley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether concomitant surgeries affected outcomes in a randomized trial comparing retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) vs transobturator MUS. Methods: Subjects (n = 597) were stratified into 4 groups based on type of concomitant surgeries: group I had anterior/apical with or without posterior repairs (n = 79, 13%); group II had posterior repairs or perineorrhaphy only (n = 38, 6%); group III had nonprolapse procedures (n = 34, 6%); and group IV had no concomitant surgeries (n = 446, 75%). Complication rates, voiding dysfunction, objective and subjective surgical failure rates, and changes in urodynamic values (postop minus preop) were assessed and compared in these 4 groups. Results: There were no differences in complications, voiding dysfunction, and subjective failure outcomes between these 4 groups. Group I had lower odds ratio of objective surgical failure compared with group IV (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.81, P =.05). The OR of failure of all patients undergoing concomitant surgeries (groups I-III) was lower than group IV (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P =.03). The change in Pdet@Qmax (from pressure-flow) was significantly higher in group III vs IV (P =.01). The change in Q max. (from uroflowmetry) was significantly less in groups I and II vs group IV (P =.046 and.04, respectively). Conclusion: Concomitant surgeries did not increase complications. Subjects who underwent certain concomitant surgeries had lower failure rates than those undergoing slings only. These data support safety and efficacy of performing concomitant surgery at the time of MUS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1256-1261
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume79
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Suburethral Slings
Urodynamics
Odds Ratio
Safety
Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Effects of concomitant surgeries during midurethral slings (mus) on postoperative complications, voiding dysfunction, continence outcomes, and urodynamic variables. / Chai, Toby C.; Kenton, Kimberly; Xu, Yan; Sirls, Larry; Zyczynski, Halina; Wilson, Tracey S.; Rahn, David D.; Whitcomb, Emily L.; Hsu, Yvonne; Gormley, Elizabeth A.

In: Urology, Vol. 79, No. 6, 06.2012, p. 1256-1261.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chai, Toby C. ; Kenton, Kimberly ; Xu, Yan ; Sirls, Larry ; Zyczynski, Halina ; Wilson, Tracey S. ; Rahn, David D. ; Whitcomb, Emily L. ; Hsu, Yvonne ; Gormley, Elizabeth A. / Effects of concomitant surgeries during midurethral slings (mus) on postoperative complications, voiding dysfunction, continence outcomes, and urodynamic variables. In: Urology. 2012 ; Vol. 79, No. 6. pp. 1256-1261.
@article{8ccf5990416e4fd69d8270ea86b5d4e3,
title = "Effects of concomitant surgeries during midurethral slings (mus) on postoperative complications, voiding dysfunction, continence outcomes, and urodynamic variables",
abstract = "Objective: To determine whether concomitant surgeries affected outcomes in a randomized trial comparing retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) vs transobturator MUS. Methods: Subjects (n = 597) were stratified into 4 groups based on type of concomitant surgeries: group I had anterior/apical with or without posterior repairs (n = 79, 13{\%}); group II had posterior repairs or perineorrhaphy only (n = 38, 6{\%}); group III had nonprolapse procedures (n = 34, 6{\%}); and group IV had no concomitant surgeries (n = 446, 75{\%}). Complication rates, voiding dysfunction, objective and subjective surgical failure rates, and changes in urodynamic values (postop minus preop) were assessed and compared in these 4 groups. Results: There were no differences in complications, voiding dysfunction, and subjective failure outcomes between these 4 groups. Group I had lower odds ratio of objective surgical failure compared with group IV (OR 0.38, 95{\%} CI 0.18-0.81, P =.05). The OR of failure of all patients undergoing concomitant surgeries (groups I-III) was lower than group IV (OR 0.57, 95{\%} CI 0.35-0.95, P =.03). The change in Pdet@Qmax (from pressure-flow) was significantly higher in group III vs IV (P =.01). The change in Q max. (from uroflowmetry) was significantly less in groups I and II vs group IV (P =.046 and.04, respectively). Conclusion: Concomitant surgeries did not increase complications. Subjects who underwent certain concomitant surgeries had lower failure rates than those undergoing slings only. These data support safety and efficacy of performing concomitant surgery at the time of MUS.",
author = "Chai, {Toby C.} and Kimberly Kenton and Yan Xu and Larry Sirls and Halina Zyczynski and Wilson, {Tracey S.} and Rahn, {David D.} and Whitcomb, {Emily L.} and Yvonne Hsu and Gormley, {Elizabeth A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.048",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "1256--1261",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of concomitant surgeries during midurethral slings (mus) on postoperative complications, voiding dysfunction, continence outcomes, and urodynamic variables

AU - Chai, Toby C.

AU - Kenton, Kimberly

AU - Xu, Yan

AU - Sirls, Larry

AU - Zyczynski, Halina

AU - Wilson, Tracey S.

AU - Rahn, David D.

AU - Whitcomb, Emily L.

AU - Hsu, Yvonne

AU - Gormley, Elizabeth A.

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Objective: To determine whether concomitant surgeries affected outcomes in a randomized trial comparing retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) vs transobturator MUS. Methods: Subjects (n = 597) were stratified into 4 groups based on type of concomitant surgeries: group I had anterior/apical with or without posterior repairs (n = 79, 13%); group II had posterior repairs or perineorrhaphy only (n = 38, 6%); group III had nonprolapse procedures (n = 34, 6%); and group IV had no concomitant surgeries (n = 446, 75%). Complication rates, voiding dysfunction, objective and subjective surgical failure rates, and changes in urodynamic values (postop minus preop) were assessed and compared in these 4 groups. Results: There were no differences in complications, voiding dysfunction, and subjective failure outcomes between these 4 groups. Group I had lower odds ratio of objective surgical failure compared with group IV (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.81, P =.05). The OR of failure of all patients undergoing concomitant surgeries (groups I-III) was lower than group IV (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P =.03). The change in Pdet@Qmax (from pressure-flow) was significantly higher in group III vs IV (P =.01). The change in Q max. (from uroflowmetry) was significantly less in groups I and II vs group IV (P =.046 and.04, respectively). Conclusion: Concomitant surgeries did not increase complications. Subjects who underwent certain concomitant surgeries had lower failure rates than those undergoing slings only. These data support safety and efficacy of performing concomitant surgery at the time of MUS.

AB - Objective: To determine whether concomitant surgeries affected outcomes in a randomized trial comparing retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) vs transobturator MUS. Methods: Subjects (n = 597) were stratified into 4 groups based on type of concomitant surgeries: group I had anterior/apical with or without posterior repairs (n = 79, 13%); group II had posterior repairs or perineorrhaphy only (n = 38, 6%); group III had nonprolapse procedures (n = 34, 6%); and group IV had no concomitant surgeries (n = 446, 75%). Complication rates, voiding dysfunction, objective and subjective surgical failure rates, and changes in urodynamic values (postop minus preop) were assessed and compared in these 4 groups. Results: There were no differences in complications, voiding dysfunction, and subjective failure outcomes between these 4 groups. Group I had lower odds ratio of objective surgical failure compared with group IV (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.81, P =.05). The OR of failure of all patients undergoing concomitant surgeries (groups I-III) was lower than group IV (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P =.03). The change in Pdet@Qmax (from pressure-flow) was significantly higher in group III vs IV (P =.01). The change in Q max. (from uroflowmetry) was significantly less in groups I and II vs group IV (P =.046 and.04, respectively). Conclusion: Concomitant surgeries did not increase complications. Subjects who underwent certain concomitant surgeries had lower failure rates than those undergoing slings only. These data support safety and efficacy of performing concomitant surgery at the time of MUS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861726916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861726916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.048

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.048

M3 - Article

C2 - 22542356

AN - SCOPUS:84861726916

VL - 79

SP - 1256

EP - 1261

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 6

ER -