Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of concomitant mid-urethral sling surgery on patients undergoing vaginal prolapse repair

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to assess whether mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement at the time of vaginal prolapse repair compared to vaginal prolapse repair alone is associated with an increase in 30-day postoperative complications.

Methods

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Database, Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify cases of vaginal prolapse repair with and without concomitant MUS from 2012 to 2017. Student’s t-test and chi-square test were used to compare differences between the groups.

Results

A total of 1469 cases of vaginal prolapse repair with sling were compared to 4566 cases without sling. There was no difference between prolapse repair with sling compared to without sling in mean hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.42 versus 1.32 days, p = 0.65), postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) (6.1% versus 5.8%, p = 0.670), perioperative blood transfusion (1.1% versus 1.2%, p = 0.673), readmission (2.7% versus 2.6%, p = 0.884) and postoperative wound infection (0.5% versus 0.7%, p = 0.51). There was a higher rate of reoperation (2.2% versus 1.5%, p = 0.049) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) (0.4% versus 0.1%, p = 0.030) in patients undergoing concomitant MUS compared to those undergoing prolapse repair alone.

Conclusions

Compared to prolapse repair alone, the addition of a sling did not increase hospital LOS, UTI, perioperative blood transfusions, readmission or postoperative wound infections. However, concomitant sling was found to be associated with a higher risk of reoperation and VTE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SUI:

Stress urinary incontinence

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

MUS:

Mid-urethral sling

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

IRB:

Institutional Review Board

ACS NSQIP:

American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Database

CPT:

Current Procedural Terminology

UTI:

Urinary tract infection

VTE:

Venous thromboembolism

OPUS:

The Outcomes Following Vaginal Prolapse Repair and Mid-urethral Sling

FPMRS:

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Wu JM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen AL, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fialkow MF, et al. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(3):437–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Borstad E, et al. Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):179–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fatton B. Is there any evidence to advocate SUI prevention in continent women undergoing prolapse repair? An overview. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(2):235–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clark AL, et al. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1261–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nager C, et al. Position statement on mesh midurethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(3):123–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Administration, F.a.D. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Implants. 2019 6/19/2019]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-and-prosthetics/urogynecologic-surgical-mesh-implants.

  9. Birkmeyer JD, et al. Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(5):777–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wei JT, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maher C, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.

    Google Scholar 

  12. van der Ploeg JM, et al. Vaginal prolapse repair with or without a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence: a randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1029–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Ploeg JM, et al. Transvaginal prolapse repair with or without the addition of a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2015;122(7):1022–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van der Ploeg JM, et al. Prolapse surgery with or without incontinence procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125(3):289–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Anger JT, et al. Thromboembolic complications of sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries. Urology. 2009;74(6):1223–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsai AW, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism incidence: the longitudinal investigation of thromboembolism etiology. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(10):1182–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Dominique Malacarne Pape, Christina M. Escobar, Surbhi Agrawal, Nirit Rosenblum & Benjamin Brucker

Authors
  1. Dominique Malacarne Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina M. Escobar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Surbhi Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nirit Rosenblum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin Brucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina M. Escobar.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malacarne Pape, D., Escobar, C.M., Agrawal, S. et al. The impact of concomitant mid-urethral sling surgery on patients undergoing vaginal prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 32, 681–685 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04544-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04544-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation