Incontinence outcomes after “second primary” compared to repeat midurethral sling for recurrent and persistent stress urinary incontinence

Academic Article

Abstract

  • Introduction and hypothesis: The current study aims to assess the continence rate of a “second primary” midurethral sling (MUS) in women with recurrent/persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after sling excision compared to a historical cohort who underwent a repeat MUS. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of women who underwent excision of a primary MUS and placement of a “second primary” MUS from 2009 to 2016 compared to a historical cohort who underwent a repeat MUS from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was continence rate, defined as “not at all” or “somewhat” to Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) SUI subscale questions. Secondary outcomes included assessment of symptom severity (UDI-6), symptom-specific quality of life, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Medical and Epidemiologic Aspects of Aging (MESA), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Results: Survey responses were available for 23/64 (36%) in the “second primary” MUS group versus 88/135 (65%) in the historical cohort. Mean follow-up in months, second primary: 41.8 ± 26.1 versus repeat: 36.2 ± 14.1, p = 0.16 and age (years): 56.4 ± 10.7 versus 59.8 ± 10.8, p = 0.19. Continence rates were 48% in “second primary” versus 56% in the repeat group (p = 0.50). Both groups had significant improvement in questionnaire scores postoperatively with no intergroup differences. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that odds of success did not differ between groups (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.27–1.99). Conclusions: In women with recurrent/persistent SUI, repeat and “second primary” MUS procedures demonstrate similar success outcomes and improvement in UI symptom distress and QOL. Continued research is needed for this increasingly important clinical question.
  • Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Melnikoff AK; Meyer I; Martin KD; Richter HE
  • Start Page

  • 75
  • End Page

  • 80
  • Volume

  • 32
  • Issue

  • 1