Advertisement

Changing surgical trends for female stress urinary incontinence in England

  • Martino Maria Zacche
  • Sambit Mukhopadhyay
  • Ilias Giarenis
Original Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery has significantly evolved with the introduction of synthetic midurethral slings (MUS). However, following reports from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Commission, the use of vaginal meshes in urogynaecology has been largely scrutinised. We analysed trends in female SUI surgery in England from 2000 to 2017.

Methods

The Hospital Episode Statistics database was retrieved from the Health and Social Care Information Centre website. Specific four-character codes of the evolving OPCS-4 coding system were used to quantify SUI operations.

Results

We analysed 180,773 admissions from 2000 to 2017. A steep rise in MUS use was noted until 2008–2009, followed by a consistent drop, with a nadir of 6383 procedures in 2016–2017. Removal of MUS has become increasingly popular, with a peak of 591 in 2012–2013. Numbers for traditional continence operations remained low. Colposuspensions markedly decreased to 189 in 2012–2013, with a slight positive trend only in the last few years, while autologous sling use costantly dropped from 262 to 124 throughout the study period. Admissions for urethral bulking agents increased from 650 to 1324 in the last 2 years.

Conclusions

MUS represents the most commonly performed procedure for SUI, despite an obvious reduction in the last 8 years. Urethral bulking agents are becoming more popular, while the numbers of colposuspensions and autologous slings are still low. Training programmes should take into account current shifts in surgical practice.

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence Surgery Mesh Trends 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Martino Zacche does not have any conflict of interest. Sambit Mukhopadhyay accepted cover of travel expensed from Dynamesh, Astellas, Kebomed UK, and Cook Medical. Ilias Giarenis received speaker honoraria from Astellas.

References

  1. 1.
    Coyne KS, Sexton CC, Thompson CL, Milsom I, Irwin D, Kopp ZS, et al. The prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the USA, the UK and Sweden: results from the epidemiology of LUTS (EpiLUTS) study. BJU Int. 2009;104(3):352–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cox A, Herschorn S, Lee L. Surgical management of female SUI: is there a gold standard? Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(2):78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ward KL, Hilton P, Uk, Ireland TVTTG. Tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence: 5-year follow up. BJOG 2008;115(2):226–233.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schimpf MO, Rahn DD, Wheeler TL, Patel M, White AB, Orejuela FJ, et al. Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review G. sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(1):71 e1–e27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Aluko P, Ogah JA. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD006375.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NICE. Urinary incontinence in women: management 2015. [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg171/resources/urinary-incontinence-in-women-management-pdf-35109747194821.
  7. 7.
    Nager CW. Midurethral slings: evidence-based medicine vs the medicolegal system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(6):708 e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parliament. Update on the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: Written statement-HCWS841 2018. [Available from: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-07-10/HCWS841/.
  9. 9.
    Withington J, Hirji S, Sahai A. The changing face of urinary continence surgery in England: a perspective from the hospital episode statistics database. BJU Int. 2014;114(2):268–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Ziprin P, et al. Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(1):138–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of hospital episode statistics data. BJOG. 2016;123(8):1386–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu JM, Gandhi MP, Shah AD, Shah JY, Fulton RG, Weidner AC. Trends in inpatient urinary incontinence surgery in the USA, 1998-2007. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1437–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee J, Dwyer PL. Age-related trends in female stress urinary incontinence surgery in Australia—Medicare data for 1994–2009. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(6):543–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu CJ, Tong YC, Hsiao SM, Liang CC, Liang SJ, Weng SF, et al. The surgical trends and time-frame comparison of primary surgery for stress urinary incontinence, 2006–2010 vs 1997–2005: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(12):1683–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cammu H, Saeys F, Haentjens P. Dramatic increase (1997–2007) in the number of procedures for stress urinary incontinence in Belgium. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(12):1511–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurkijarvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Makinen J. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence in Finland 1987-2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1021–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rac G, Younger A, Clemens JQ, Kobashi K, Khan A, Nitti V, et al. Stress urinary incontinence surgery trends in academic female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urology practice in the setting of the food and drug administration public health notifications. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(4):1155–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown J, King J. Age-stratified trends in 20 years of stress incontinence surgery in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;56(2):192–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rice NT, Hu Y, Slaughter JC, Ward RM. Pelvic mesh complications in women before and after the 2011 FDA public health notification. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(6):333–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brennand E, Ruiz-Mirazo E, Tang S, Kim-Fine S. Calgary Women's pelvic Health Research G. urinary leakage during exercise: problematic activities, adaptive behaviors, and interest in treatment for physically active Canadian women. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(4):497–503.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghoniem G, Hammett J. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice patterns: IUGA member survey. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(10):1489–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirchin V, Page T, Keegan PE, Atiemo K, Cody JD, McClinton S. Urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD003881.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robinson DA, Cardozo K, Bidmead L, Dixon J, Balmforth A, Rufford J. J. What do women want?: interpretation of the concept of cure. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2003;9(6):273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrogynaecologyNorfolk and Norwich University HospitalNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations