Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision: A multicenter case-control study

Stephanie Molden, Danielle Patterson, Megan Tarr, Tatiana Sanses, Jessica Bracken, Aimee Nguyen, Heide S. Harvie, Amanda White, Sarah A. Hammil, Miles Murphy, Rebecca G. Rogers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement. Methods: This multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision. Results: Of the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.79; p=0.004) retropubic sling type (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.08-4.78; p=0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR=4.88, 95% CI 2.16-11.05; p<0.001) Conclusions: This study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1253-1259
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Volume21
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2010

Fingerprint

Suburethral Slings
Case-Control Studies
Urodynamics
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Demography

Keywords

  • Midurethral sling
  • Sling revision
  • Voiding dysfucntion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision : A multicenter case-control study. / Molden, Stephanie; Patterson, Danielle; Tarr, Megan; Sanses, Tatiana; Bracken, Jessica; Nguyen, Aimee; Harvie, Heide S.; White, Amanda; Hammil, Sarah A.; Murphy, Miles; Rogers, Rebecca G.

In: International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Vol. 21, No. 10, 10.2010, p. 1253-1259.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Molden, S, Patterson, D, Tarr, M, Sanses, T, Bracken, J, Nguyen, A, Harvie, HS, White, A, Hammil, SA, Murphy, M & Rogers, RG 2010, 'Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision: A multicenter case-control study', International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1253-1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1186-1
Molden, Stephanie ; Patterson, Danielle ; Tarr, Megan ; Sanses, Tatiana ; Bracken, Jessica ; Nguyen, Aimee ; Harvie, Heide S. ; White, Amanda ; Hammil, Sarah A. ; Murphy, Miles ; Rogers, Rebecca G. / Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision : A multicenter case-control study. In: International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 2010 ; Vol. 21, No. 10. pp. 1253-1259.
@article{024a47e7d85549448fff02f8289043f0,
title = "Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision: A multicenter case-control study",
abstract = "Introduction and hypothesis: To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement. Methods: This multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision. Results: Of the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95{\%} CI 1.32-5.79; p=0.004) retropubic sling type (OR=2.28, 95{\%} CI 1.08-4.78; p=0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR=4.88, 95{\%} CI 2.16-11.05; p<0.001) Conclusions: This study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.",
keywords = "Midurethral sling, Sling revision, Voiding dysfucntion",
author = "Stephanie Molden and Danielle Patterson and Megan Tarr and Tatiana Sanses and Jessica Bracken and Aimee Nguyen and Harvie, {Heide S.} and Amanda White and Hammil, {Sarah A.} and Miles Murphy and Rogers, {Rebecca G.}",
year = "2010",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s00192-010-1186-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "1253--1259",
journal = "International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction",
issn = "0937-3462",
publisher = "Springer London",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision

T2 - A multicenter case-control study

AU - Molden, Stephanie

AU - Patterson, Danielle

AU - Tarr, Megan

AU - Sanses, Tatiana

AU - Bracken, Jessica

AU - Nguyen, Aimee

AU - Harvie, Heide S.

AU - White, Amanda

AU - Hammil, Sarah A.

AU - Murphy, Miles

AU - Rogers, Rebecca G.

PY - 2010/10

Y1 - 2010/10

N2 - Introduction and hypothesis: To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement. Methods: This multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision. Results: Of the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.79; p=0.004) retropubic sling type (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.08-4.78; p=0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR=4.88, 95% CI 2.16-11.05; p<0.001) Conclusions: This study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.

AB - Introduction and hypothesis: To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement. Methods: This multicenter case-control study included patients who underwent MUS placement and subsequent revision secondary to voiding dysfunction from January 1999-2007 from nine Urogynecology centers across the USA. Direct logistic regression analysis was used to determine which diagnostic variables predicted sling revision. Results: Of the patients, 197 met the study criteria. Patient demographics, urodynamic findings, and operative differences did not increase the risk for sling revision. Risk factors for sling revision did include: pre-existing voiding symptoms (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.79; p=0.004) retropubic sling type (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.08-4.78; p=0.04) and concurrent surgery (OR=4.88, 95% CI 2.16-11.05; p<0.001) Conclusions: This study determined that pre-existing obstructive voiding symptoms, retropubic sling type, and concurrent surgery at the time of sling placement are risk factors for sling revision.

KW - Midurethral sling

KW - Sling revision

KW - Voiding dysfucntion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956474267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956474267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00192-010-1186-1

DO - 10.1007/s00192-010-1186-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 20552167

AN - SCOPUS:77956474267

VL - 21

SP - 1253

EP - 1259

JO - International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

JF - International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

SN - 0937-3462

IS - 10

ER -