Sling incision is not always sufficient: A case series

Philippe E. Zimmern, Himanshu Aggarwal, Feras Alhalabi

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objectives: To review various erroneous diagnoses assigned to symptomatic women after MUS incision, and report our outcomes after MUS excision in these women. Materials and Methods: Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of a prospectively collected MUS removal database was performed for non-neurogenic women who presented with continued LUTS despite a prior sling incision. Data reviewed by a neutral investigator not involved in patient care included demographics, presenting symptomatology, and outcomes after sub-urethral sling excision. Results: From 2006-2015, 18 patients were identified. Mean age was 55 + 12 years. Median time from initial placement to sling incision was 12 (range 1-108) months. Following sling incision, residual LUTS were treated with various therapies but without LUTS resolution. Indications for sling excision were obstruction (3), obstruction and pain (2), persistent vaginal pain/dyspareunia (9), recurrent vaginal exposure/dyspareunia (2), worsening urgency incontinence (1) and mixed urinary incontinence (1). Median time from sling incision to sling excision was 55 (range 5-146) months. Median follow-up after MUS excision was 12 months (range 6-45 months). Obstruction (5) and exposure (2) were all cured. Vaginal pain and dyspareunia improved in 8 of 11 women and UUI improved in one. Three women had persistent SUI and 1 developed recurrent SUI. Two women were treated satisfactorily with bulking agents, one with fascial sling and one with bulking agent followed by a fascial sling. Conclusions: Sling incision may not always resolve LUTS. In a subset of women, sling excision may eventually be needed, with variable outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)198-201
Number of pages4
JournalUrological Science
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Dyspareunia
Pain
Suburethral Slings
Research Ethics Committees
Urinary Incontinence
Patient Care
Research Personnel
Demography
Databases
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Bladder outlet obstruction
  • sling excision
  • sling incision

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Sling incision is not always sufficient : A case series. / Zimmern, Philippe E.; Aggarwal, Himanshu; Alhalabi, Feras.

In: Urological Science, Vol. 29, No. 4, 01.07.2018, p. 198-201.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Zimmern, Philippe E. ; Aggarwal, Himanshu ; Alhalabi, Feras. / Sling incision is not always sufficient : A case series. In: Urological Science. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 198-201.
@article{72a6b3db54414a879d6b666590f959e9,
title = "Sling incision is not always sufficient: A case series",
abstract = "Objectives: To review various erroneous diagnoses assigned to symptomatic women after MUS incision, and report our outcomes after MUS excision in these women. Materials and Methods: Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of a prospectively collected MUS removal database was performed for non-neurogenic women who presented with continued LUTS despite a prior sling incision. Data reviewed by a neutral investigator not involved in patient care included demographics, presenting symptomatology, and outcomes after sub-urethral sling excision. Results: From 2006-2015, 18 patients were identified. Mean age was 55 + 12 years. Median time from initial placement to sling incision was 12 (range 1-108) months. Following sling incision, residual LUTS were treated with various therapies but without LUTS resolution. Indications for sling excision were obstruction (3), obstruction and pain (2), persistent vaginal pain/dyspareunia (9), recurrent vaginal exposure/dyspareunia (2), worsening urgency incontinence (1) and mixed urinary incontinence (1). Median time from sling incision to sling excision was 55 (range 5-146) months. Median follow-up after MUS excision was 12 months (range 6-45 months). Obstruction (5) and exposure (2) were all cured. Vaginal pain and dyspareunia improved in 8 of 11 women and UUI improved in one. Three women had persistent SUI and 1 developed recurrent SUI. Two women were treated satisfactorily with bulking agents, one with fascial sling and one with bulking agent followed by a fascial sling. Conclusions: Sling incision may not always resolve LUTS. In a subset of women, sling excision may eventually be needed, with variable outcomes.",
keywords = "Bladder outlet obstruction, sling excision, sling incision",
author = "Zimmern, {Philippe E.} and Himanshu Aggarwal and Feras Alhalabi",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/UROS.UROS-21-18",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "198--201",
journal = "Urological Science",
issn = "1879-5226",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sling incision is not always sufficient

T2 - A case series

AU - Zimmern, Philippe E.

AU - Aggarwal, Himanshu

AU - Alhalabi, Feras

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To review various erroneous diagnoses assigned to symptomatic women after MUS incision, and report our outcomes after MUS excision in these women. Materials and Methods: Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of a prospectively collected MUS removal database was performed for non-neurogenic women who presented with continued LUTS despite a prior sling incision. Data reviewed by a neutral investigator not involved in patient care included demographics, presenting symptomatology, and outcomes after sub-urethral sling excision. Results: From 2006-2015, 18 patients were identified. Mean age was 55 + 12 years. Median time from initial placement to sling incision was 12 (range 1-108) months. Following sling incision, residual LUTS were treated with various therapies but without LUTS resolution. Indications for sling excision were obstruction (3), obstruction and pain (2), persistent vaginal pain/dyspareunia (9), recurrent vaginal exposure/dyspareunia (2), worsening urgency incontinence (1) and mixed urinary incontinence (1). Median time from sling incision to sling excision was 55 (range 5-146) months. Median follow-up after MUS excision was 12 months (range 6-45 months). Obstruction (5) and exposure (2) were all cured. Vaginal pain and dyspareunia improved in 8 of 11 women and UUI improved in one. Three women had persistent SUI and 1 developed recurrent SUI. Two women were treated satisfactorily with bulking agents, one with fascial sling and one with bulking agent followed by a fascial sling. Conclusions: Sling incision may not always resolve LUTS. In a subset of women, sling excision may eventually be needed, with variable outcomes.

AB - Objectives: To review various erroneous diagnoses assigned to symptomatic women after MUS incision, and report our outcomes after MUS excision in these women. Materials and Methods: Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of a prospectively collected MUS removal database was performed for non-neurogenic women who presented with continued LUTS despite a prior sling incision. Data reviewed by a neutral investigator not involved in patient care included demographics, presenting symptomatology, and outcomes after sub-urethral sling excision. Results: From 2006-2015, 18 patients were identified. Mean age was 55 + 12 years. Median time from initial placement to sling incision was 12 (range 1-108) months. Following sling incision, residual LUTS were treated with various therapies but without LUTS resolution. Indications for sling excision were obstruction (3), obstruction and pain (2), persistent vaginal pain/dyspareunia (9), recurrent vaginal exposure/dyspareunia (2), worsening urgency incontinence (1) and mixed urinary incontinence (1). Median time from sling incision to sling excision was 55 (range 5-146) months. Median follow-up after MUS excision was 12 months (range 6-45 months). Obstruction (5) and exposure (2) were all cured. Vaginal pain and dyspareunia improved in 8 of 11 women and UUI improved in one. Three women had persistent SUI and 1 developed recurrent SUI. Two women were treated satisfactorily with bulking agents, one with fascial sling and one with bulking agent followed by a fascial sling. Conclusions: Sling incision may not always resolve LUTS. In a subset of women, sling excision may eventually be needed, with variable outcomes.

KW - Bladder outlet obstruction

KW - sling excision

KW - sling incision

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050742011&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050742011&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/UROS.UROS-21-18

DO - 10.4103/UROS.UROS-21-18

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85050742011

VL - 29

SP - 198

EP - 201

JO - Urological Science

JF - Urological Science

SN - 1879-5226

IS - 4

ER -