Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the risk of urethrolysis for the treatment of voiding dysfunction between two retropubic mesh slings: a case-control study

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Long-term outcome data exist with Gynecare TVT™ tension-free support for incontinence (TVT), yet few comparisons have been made to newer retropubic sling delivery systems, especially with regards to urethrolysis for postoperative voiding dysfunction. Our objective was to compare the odds of urethrolysis for the treatment of voiding dysfunction between two retropubic sling systems.

Methods

We performed a case–control study comparing the risk of urethrolysis between TVT versus the Bard ALIGN® Urethral Support System (Bard Align). We identified surgical procedures described as urethrolysis, sling revision, loosening, or lysis performed for the treatment of voiding dysfunction by urogynecologists at Duke University between January 2007 and June 2011. Slings placed at outside institutions were excluded. Controls were matched for both concomitant prolapse procedures and academic year.

Results

Of 818 total slings placed during the study period, there were 28 (3.4 %) urethrolysis cases, which were matched to 84 controls. Among urethrolysis cases, 6/28 (21.4 %) had received TVT, while 22/28 (78.6 %) had received Bard Align slings. Of the 84 matched controls, 30/84 (35.7 %) had undergone TVT and 54/84 (64.3 %) had undergone Bard Align. There was no significant difference in the odds of urethrolysis following the use of TVT or Bard Align [odds ratio (OR) 2.00, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74–5.50]. In a conditional logistic regression model, which adjusted for age, body mass index, prior anti-incontinence or prolapse surgery, and postvoid residual, there remained no significant difference in odds of urethrolysis between the two sling types (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 0.42–5.33).

Conclusions

Despite different instrument designs, there was no significant difference in the risk of urethrolysis following TVT or Bard Align retropubic sling.

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

References

  1. Jonsson Funk M, Levin PJ, Wu JM (2012) Trends in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):845–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stanford EJ, Paraiso MF (2008) A comprehensive review of suburethral sling procedure complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(2):132–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang KH, Wang KH, Neimark M, Davila GW (2002) Voiding dysfunction following TVT procedure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13(6):353–357, discussion 358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Salin A, Conquy S, Elie C, Touboul C, Parra J, Zerbib M, Debré B, Amsellem-Ouazana D (2007) Identification of risk factors for voiding dysfunction following TVT placement. Eur Urol 51(3):782–787, discussion 787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klutke JJ, Carlin BI, Klutke CG (2000) The tension-free vaginal tape procedure: correction of stress incontinence with minimal alteration in proximal urethral mobility. Urology 55(4):512–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Park S, Hong B, Lee KS, Choo MS (2005) Risk factors of voiding dysfunction and patient satisfaction after tension-free vaginal tape procedure. J Korean Med Sci 20(6):1006–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carr LK, Webster GD (1997) Voiding dysfunction following incontinence surgery: diagnosis and treatment with retropubic or vaginal urethrolysis. J Urol 157(3):821–823

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Segal J, Steele A, Vassallo B, Kleeman S, Silva AW, Pauls R, Walsh P, Karram M (2006) Various surgical approaches to treat voiding dysfunction following anti-incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(4):372–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Molden S, Bracken J, Nguyen A, Harvie HS, White A, Hammil SL, Patterson D, Tarr M, Sanses T, Murphy M, Rogers RG (2010) A retrospective multicenter study on outcomes after midurethral polypropylene sling revision for voiding dysfunction. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 16(6):340–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Duckett JR, Patil A, Papanikolaou NS (2008) Predicting early voiding dysfunction after tension-free vaginal tape. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(1):89–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hong B, Park S, Kim HS, Choo MS (2003) Factors predictive of urinary retention after a tension-free vaginal tape procedure for female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 170(3):852–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vervest HA, Bisseling TM, Heintz AP, Schraffordt Koops SE (2007) The prevalence of voiding difficulty after TVT, its impact on quality of life, and related risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(2):173–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rardin CR, Rosenblatt PL, Kohli N, Miklos JR, Heit M, Lucente VR (2002) Release of tension-free vaginal tape for the treatment of refractory postoperative voiding dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 100(5 Pt 1):898–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Molden S, Patterson D, Tarr M, Sanses T, Bracken J, Nguyen A, Harvie HS, White A, Hammil SA, Murphy M, Rogers RG (2010) Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision: a multicenter case–control study. Int Urogynecol J 21(10):1253–1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Farrell SA, Tynski G (1996) The effect of urethral pressure variation on detrusor activity in women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7(2):87–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Petros PE (1996) Re: Farrell SA and Tynskl G. ‘The effect of urethral pressure variation in women’. Int Urogynecol J 1996;7:87–93. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7(5):274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tseng LH, Wang AC, Lin YH, Li SJ, Ko YJ (2005) Randomized comparison of the suprapubic arc sling procedure vs tension-free vaginal taping for stress incontinent women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(3):230–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. South MM, Wu JM, Webster GD, Weidner AC, Roelands JJ, Amundsen CL (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.e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dean AG SK, Soe MM (2011) OpenEpi: open source epidemiologic statistics for public health, version 2.3.1

  20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative (2008) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Casiano ER, Gebhart JB, McGree ME, Weaver AL, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC (2011) Does concomitant prolapse repair at the time of midurethral sling affect recurrent rates of incontinence? Int Urogynecol J 22(7):819–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paick JS, Cho MC, Oh SJ, Kim SW, Ku JH (2007) Factors influencing the outcome of mid urethral sling procedures for female urinary incontinence. J Urol 178(3 Pt 1):985–989, discussion 989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leng WW, Davies BJ, Tarin T, Sweeney DD, Chancellor MB (2004) Delayed treatment of bladder outlet obstruction after sling surgery: association with irreversible bladder dysfunction. J Urol 172(4 Pt 1):1379–1381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urogynecology Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Amie Kawasaki, Autumn L. Edenfield, Jennifer M. Wu & Nazema Y. Siddiqui

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Anthony G. Visco & Daniel Westreich

  3. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Daniel Westreich

  4. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, 5324 McFarland Drive, Suite 300, Durham, NC, 27707, USA

    Amie Kawasaki

Authors
  1. Amie Kawasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Autumn L. Edenfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony G. Visco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer M. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Westreich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nazema Y. Siddiqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amie Kawasaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kawasaki, A., Edenfield, A.L., Visco, A.G. et al. Comparing the risk of urethrolysis for the treatment of voiding dysfunction between two retropubic mesh slings: a case-control study. Int Urogynecol J 24, 589–594 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1920-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1920-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation