International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1253–1259 | Cite as

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
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

To determine risk factors for sling revision after midurethral sling (MUS) placement.


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.


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)


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.


Voiding dysfucntion Midurethral sling Sling revision 


Conflicts of interest

S. Molden, MD: Ethicon consultant/instructor

M. Murphy, MD, MSPH: Ethicon/AMS/Bard consultant/instructor

R. Rogers, MD: Pfizer research grant, NBC speaker’s bureau/consultant.


  1. 1.
    Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, FitzGerald et al (2003) Patient-selected goals: a new perspective on surgical outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1551–1558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albo ME, Richter HE, Brubaker L et al (2007) Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce stress urinary incontinence. N Engl J Med 356:2143–2155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P et al (1996) An ambulatory surgical under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:81–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nitti VW, Fleischman N (2007) Voiding dysfunction and urinary retention. In: Walters MD, Karram MM (eds) Urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 390–399Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanford ED, Paraiso MFR (2008) A comprehensive review of suburethral sling procedure complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:132–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuuva N, Nilsson CG (2002) A nationwide analysis of complications associated with the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:72–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F et al (2001) Tension-free vaginal tape: analysis of outcomes and complications in 4004 stress incontinent women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12(Suppl 2):S24–S27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barber MD, Gustilo-Ashby AM, Chen CCG et al (2006) Perioperative complications and adverse events of the Monarch ™transobturator tape compared to the tension-free vaginal tape. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1820–1825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lemack GE, Krauss S, Litman H et al (2008) Normal preoperative urodynamic testing does not predict voiding dysfunction after Burch colposuspension versus pubovaginal sling. J Urol 180:2076–2080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhatia NN, Bergman A (1984) Urodynamic predictability of voiding following incontinence surgery. Obstet Gynecol 63:85–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groen J, Ruud Bosch JLH (2004) Bladder contraction strength parameters poorly predict the necessity of long-term catheterization after a pubovaginal rectus fascial sling procedure. J Urol 172:1006–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLennan MT, Melick CF, Bent AE (1998) Clinical and urodynamic predictors of delayed voiding after fascia lata suburethral sling. Obstet Gynecol 92:608–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller EA, Amundsen CL, Toh KL et al (2003) Pre-operative urodynamic evaluation may predict voiding dysfunction in women undergoing pubovaginal sling. J Urol 169:2234–2237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wheeler TL, Richter HE, Greer WJ et al (2008) Predictors of success with post-operative voiding trials after a midurethral sling procedure. J Urol 179:600–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kawashima H, Hirai K, Okada N et al (2004) The importance of studying pressure flow for predicting post-operative voiding difficulties in women with stress urinary incontinence: a preliminary study that correlates low Pdet × Qave with post-operative residual urine. Urol Res 32:84–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morey AF, Medendorp AR, Noller MW et al (2006) Transobturator versus transabdominal mid urethral slings: a multi-institutional comparison of obstructive voiding complications. J Urol 175:1014–1017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinberger MW, Ostergard DR (1996) Postoperative catheterization, urinary retention, and permanent voiding dysfunction after polytetrafluoroethylene suburethral sling placement. Obstet Gynecol 87:50–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sokol AI, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD et al (2005) Incidence and predictors of prolonged urinary retention after TVT with and without concurrent prolapse surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1537–1543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lowenstein L, Olivera C, Harvie H et al (2008) The Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network (FPRN). Int Urogynecol J 19:895–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tamussino KF, Hanzal E, Kolle D et al (2001) Tension-free vaginal tape operation: results of the Austrian registry. Obstet Gynecol 98(5 Pt 1):732–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rardin CR, Rosenblatt PL, Kohli N et al (2002) Release of tension-free vaginal tape for the treatment of refractory postoperative voiding dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 100(5 Pt 1):898–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barber MD, Kleeman S, Karram MM et al (2008) Transobturator tape compared with tension-free vaginal tape for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):611–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Buckwalter JG et al (2005) Epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire: validation of a new epidemiologic survey. Int Urogynecol J 16(4):272–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blaivas JG, Groutz A (2000) Bladder outlet obstruction nomogram for women with lower urinary tract symptomatology. Neurourol Urodyn 19(5):553–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    South MM, Wu JM, Webster GD et al (2009) Early vs late midline sling lysis results in greater improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(5):564.e1–564.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amundsen CL, Guralnick ML, Webster GD (2000) Variations in strategy for the treatment of urethral obstruction after a pubovaginal sling procedure. J Urol 164(2):434–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leng WW, Davies BJ, Tarin T et al (2004) Delayed treatment of bladder outlet obstruction after sling surgery: association with irreversible bladder dysfunction. J Urol 172(4 Pt 1):1379–1381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lukacz ES, Luber KM, Nager CW (2004) The effects of the tension-free vaginal tape on voiding function: a prospective evaluation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15(1):32–38, discussion 38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meltomaa S, Backman T, Haarala M (2004) Concomitant vaginal surgery did not affect outcome of the tension-free vaginal tape operation during a prospective 3-year follow-up study. J Urol 172(1):222–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak DN et al (2007) Clinical predictors of urinary retention after pelvic reconstructive and stress urinary incontinence surgery. J Reprod Med 52(7):611–615PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Molden
    • 1
    • 10
  • Danielle Patterson
    • 2
  • Megan Tarr
    • 3
  • Tatiana Sanses
    • 4
  • Jessica Bracken
    • 5
  • Aimee Nguyen
    • 6
  • Heide S. Harvie
    • 7
  • Amanda White
    • 8
  • Sarah A. Hammil
    • 9
  • Miles Murphy
    • 1
  • Rebecca G. Rogers
    • 9
  1. 1.The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive SurgeryAllentownUSA
  2. 2.Brigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Loyola UniversityChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Greater Baltimore Medical CenterBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Scott & WhiteTempleUSA
  6. 6.Evanston Northshore HospitalEvanstonUSA
  7. 7.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  8. 8.University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  9. 9.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  10. 10.The Female Pelvic Health CenterLanghorneUSA

Personalised recommendations