Advertisement

Childbirth after mid-urethral sling surgery: effects on long-term success and complications

  • Ole A. DyrkornEmail author
  • Anne C. Staff
  • Sigurd Kulseng-Hanssen
  • Hjalmar A. Schiøtz
  • Rune Svenningsen
Original Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To evaluate long-term outcomes in women with one or more childbirths after mid-urethral sling (MUS) surgery and potential differences in outcomes based on mode of delivery.

Methods

A population-based cohort study using data from two national registries. Women registered with childbirth after MUS (case group) or without childbirth after MUS (control group), with equal follow-up time, underwent a structured telephone interview using a validated short-form urinary disease-specific questionnaire. Primary outcomes were current stress urinary incontinence (SUI) rate and change in cure rate. Secondary outcomes were effect of delivery mode, rates of repeat operations for SUI, complications, treatment satisfaction and urgency urinary incontinence rate. Childbirth as an independent risk factor for SUI recurrence was also evaluated.

Results

Seventy-two women with and 156 women without childbirth after MUS were included.

Median follow-up time was 10 years for both groups. Subjective SUI cure rates were 82% (cases) and 75% (controls), respectively (p = 0.31). A significantly lower SUI cure rate was seen in the women with more than one childbirth after MUS (50% vs. 88% p = 0.006).

No differences in primary or secondary outcomes were found between groups at follow-up, nor did mode of delivery affect outcomes. Childbirth after MUS was not an independent risk factor for subjective SUI recurrence (OR 0.8 CI 0.3–1.7).

Conclusions

No differences in outcomes were seen between groups at follow-up independently of delivery mode. However, having more than one delivery after MUS seems to impact the continence status.

Keywords

Mid-urethral sling Pregnancy Stress urinary incontinence Obstetric delivery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Valuable help in extracting data from the Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry (NFIR) was given by Tomislav Dimoski, system developer at the Norwegian National Female Incontinence Registry. The authors also acknowledge the contributory members of the Norwegian National Incontinence Registry at each reporting hospital department for help in recruiting women in the case group.

Funding

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital and supported by a grant from the Norwegian Medical Association (no. 14/1695). The funding sources had no role in study design, data analysis, or writing of the report.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hunskaar S, Lose G, Sykes D, Voss S. The prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in four European countries. BJU Int. 2004;93:324–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, et al. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of incontinence in the county of Nord-Trøndelag. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Svenningsen R, Staff AC, Schiøtz HA, et al. Long-term follow-up of the retropubic tension-free vaginal tape procedure. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1271–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2058-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nilsson CG, Palva K, Aarnio R, et al. Seventeen years' follow-up of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1265–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2090-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirby AC, Nager CW. Indications, contraindications, and complications of mesh in the surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;56:257–75.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e31828563d2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rortveit G, Hannestad YS, Daltveit AK, Hunskaar S. Age- and type-dependent effects of parity on urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1004–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S. Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:900–7.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leijonhufvud Å, Lundholm C, Cnattingius S, et al. Risks of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery in relation to mode of childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:70.e1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.08.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arunkalaivanan AS, Barrington JW. Questionnaire-based survey on obstetricians and gynaecologists' attitudes towards the surgical management of urinary incontinence in women during their childbearing years. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;108:85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groenen R, Vos MC, Willekes C, Vervest HAM. Pregnancy and delivery after mid-urethral sling procedures for stress urinary incontinence: case reports and a review of literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:441–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0509-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alperin M, Cook M, Tuttle LJ, et al. Impact of vaginal parity and aging on the architectural design of pelvic floor muscles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:312.e1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tunn R. Childbearing after TVT: how I have my baby when I have a TVT. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17:553–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0212-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cavkaytar S, Kokanali MK, Ozer I, et al. Effect of pregnancy and delivery on urinary incontinence after the midurethral sling procedure. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:693–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2568-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panel L, Triopon G, Courtieu C, et al. How to advise a woman who wants to get pregnant after a sub-urethral tape placement? Int Urogynecol J. 2007;19:347–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0444-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams-Piper E, Darbinian J, Postlethwaite D, Castillo PA. Pregnancy after transvaginal sling for stress urinary incontinence: a case series. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:212–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergman I, Westergren Söderberg M, Lundqvist A, Ek M. Associations between childbirth and urinary incontinence after midurethral sling surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:297–303.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kulseng-Hanssen S. The development of a national database of the results of surgery for urinary incontinence in women. BJOG. 2003;110:975–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Engeland A, Bjørge T, Daltveit AK, et al. Validation of disease registration in pregnant women in the medical birth registry of Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1083–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340903128454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kulseng-Hanssen S, Borstad E. The development of a questionnaire to measure the severity of symptoms and the quality of life before and after surgery for stress incontinence. BJOG. 2003;110:983–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An international Urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:4–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20798.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guerette NL, Bena JF, Davila GW. Transobturator slings for stress incontinence: using urodynamic parameters to predict outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;19:97–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0393-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Houwert RM, Venema PL, Aquarius AE, et al. Risk factors for failure of retropubic and transobturator midurethral slings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:202.e1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palva K, Nilsson CG. Effectiveness of the TVT procedure as a repeat mid-urethra operation for treatment of stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:769–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0849-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pradhan A, Jain P, Latthe PM. Effectiveness of midurethral slings in recurrent stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:831–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1803-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fuselier A, Hanberry J, Margaret Lovin J, Gomelsky A. Obesity and stress urinary incontinence: impact on pathophysiology and treatment. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19:10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0762-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aigmueller T, Trutnovsky G, Tamussino K, et al. Ten-year follow-up after the tension-free vaginal tape procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:496.e1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Serati M, Sorice P, Bogani G, et al. TVT for the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence: efficacy and adverse effects at 13-year follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;36:192–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.The Norwegian Female Incontinence RegistryOsloNorway
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyVestfold Hospital TrustTønsbergNorway

Personalised recommendations