Sling revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention: Long-term risk and predictors - Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the long-term risk of sling revision/removal after an initial sling and to assess indications (mesh erosion and urinary retention) and predictors of sling revision/removal.

STUDY DESIGN: Using a population-based cohort of commercially insured individuals, we identified women 18 years old or older who underwent a sling (Current Procedural Terminology code 57288) between 2001 and 2010 and any subsequent sling revision/removal (Current Procedural Terminology code 57287). We estimated the cumulative risk of revision/removal annually and evaluated predictors of sling revision/removal using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively.

RESULTS: We identified 188,454 eligible women who underwent an index sling. The 9 year cumulative risk of sling revision/removal was 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-3.9). At 1 year, this risk was already 2.2% and then increased to 3.2% at 4 years before plateauing. With regard to the indication for the sling revision/removal, a greater proportion was due to mesh erosion compared with urinary retention, with a 9 year risk of 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3-2.6) for mesh erosion vs 1.3% (95% CI, 1.2-1.4) for urinary retention. Age had an effect on the revision/removal rates for both mesh erosion and urinary retention, with the higher risks among those aged 18-29 years. The risk of revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention was also elevated among women who had a concomitant anterior or apical prolapse procedure.

CONCLUSION: In this population-based analysis, the 9 year risk of sling revision/removal was relatively low at 3.7%, with 60% of revisions/removals caused by mesh erosion.

Written by:
Jonsson Funk M, Siddiqui NY, Pate V, Amundsen CL, Wu JM.   Are you the author?
Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Reference: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;208(1):73.e1-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.006


PubMed Abstract
PMID: 23099189

UroToday.com Stress Urinary Incontinence Section