Multidimensional outcomes of suburethral synthetic midurethral sling removal
- 19 Downloads
To report multidimensional outcomes encompassing pain, dyspareunia, and recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), following suburethral sling removal (SSR) of synthetic midurethral slings (MUS) placed for female stress urinary incontinence.
We reviewed a prospectively maintained, IRB-approved database of women undergoing SSR at our institution. Demographic data, type of sling, and symptoms along with Urogenital Distress Inventory-Short Form (UDI-6) scores both before and after SSR were analyzed. Success was defined using several modalities including patient-reported symptoms (ideal outcome) and UDI-6 questionnaire.
From 3/2006–2/2017, 443 women underwent SSR of which 230 met study criteria with median overall follow-up of 23 months (mean 30 months). 180/230 (78%) patients reported 3 or more symptoms at presentation. Median most recent post-SSR total UDI-6 score was 38 vs. 50 at baseline (p < 0.0001). By UDI-6, 53% of patients achieved success post-SSR. An ideal outcome was attained in 22/230 (10%) patients. A modified outcome allowing for one minimally invasive anti-incontinence procedure and excluding sexual activity classified 112/230 (49%) patients as successes.
While patients with MUS present with multiple symptoms, following SSR, there is sustained improvement in multiple symptom domains, including pain and urinary incontinence. Allowing for minimally invasive anti-incontinence procedures (not inclusive of subsequent suburethral sling), the rate of success was 49%, which was comparable to that derived from UDI-6 scores (53%).
KeywordsMidurethral sling Sling excision Complication of sling Outcome measure UDI-6
Sub-urethral midurethral sling removal
Urogenital Distress Inventory-Short Form
Urinary tract infection
NAS: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. CW: data collection or management. NS: data collection or management, and data analysis. FA: data collection or management. AC: data analysis. GEL: protocol/project development, and manuscript writing/editing. PEZ: protocol/project development, data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (IRB protocol # 072015-079) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 11.Shakir NA, Wang C, Singla N, Alhalabi F, Christie A, Lemack GE et al (2018) Challenges of multidimensional outcome reporting after suburethral midurethral sling removal. J UrolGoogle Scholar
- 14.Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29(1):4–20Google Scholar
- 17.Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Neurourol Urodyn 14(2):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar