Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void with Valsalva

Blake B. Anderson, Joseph J Pariser, Shane M. Pearce, Jessica G. Volsky, Gregory T. Bales, Doreen E. Chung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To compare outcomes after retropubic sling (RPS) in women with and without Valsalva voiding. Methods Women who underwent RPS for stress incontinence from 2010 to 2014 were identified and their baseline characteristics were examined. Valsalva voiding was defined as abdominal straining throughout voiding on preoperative urodynamics. Sub-analysis of those with Valsalva included a subset with detrusor underactivity on urodynamics. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were rates of subjective success, revisions, complications, and voiding dysfunction. Secondary measures were Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) score, post-void residual, and pad use. Results Subjects (n = 141) analyzed included 75 Valsalva voiders (VV) and 66 non-Valsalva voiders. At baseline, there were no differences in age, race, comorbidity, post-void residual, pad use, UDI-6, or capacity. Postoperatively, there were no differences in rates of passing initial void trial, need for clean intermittent catheterization, revisions, complications, or voiding dysfunction. No differences in pad use, UDI-6, or IIQ-7 were seen at 6 or 12 months. Within VV, no differences between patients with and without detrusor underactivity were seen for any primary or secondary outcomes (all P >.05). Conclusion In patients who void with Valsalva, RPS appears to be safe and effective. Between VV and non-Valsalva voiders, there were no differences in rates of subjective success, revisions, or complications, even in patients with Valsalva voiding without appreciable detrusor contraction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)52-57
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume91
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Suburethral Slings
Urodynamics
Safety
Intermittent Urethral Catheterization
Comorbidity
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void with Valsalva. / Anderson, Blake B.; Pariser, Joseph J; Pearce, Shane M.; Volsky, Jessica G.; Bales, Gregory T.; Chung, Doreen E.

In: Urology, Vol. 91, 01.05.2016, p. 52-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Anderson, Blake B. ; Pariser, Joseph J ; Pearce, Shane M. ; Volsky, Jessica G. ; Bales, Gregory T. ; Chung, Doreen E. / Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void with Valsalva. In: Urology. 2016 ; Vol. 91. pp. 52-57.
@article{2a9daab94b344cf7bb726e73ae5c7b0b,
title = "Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void with Valsalva",
abstract = "Objective To compare outcomes after retropubic sling (RPS) in women with and without Valsalva voiding. Methods Women who underwent RPS for stress incontinence from 2010 to 2014 were identified and their baseline characteristics were examined. Valsalva voiding was defined as abdominal straining throughout voiding on preoperative urodynamics. Sub-analysis of those with Valsalva included a subset with detrusor underactivity on urodynamics. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were rates of subjective success, revisions, complications, and voiding dysfunction. Secondary measures were Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) score, post-void residual, and pad use. Results Subjects (n = 141) analyzed included 75 Valsalva voiders (VV) and 66 non-Valsalva voiders. At baseline, there were no differences in age, race, comorbidity, post-void residual, pad use, UDI-6, or capacity. Postoperatively, there were no differences in rates of passing initial void trial, need for clean intermittent catheterization, revisions, complications, or voiding dysfunction. No differences in pad use, UDI-6, or IIQ-7 were seen at 6 or 12 months. Within VV, no differences between patients with and without detrusor underactivity were seen for any primary or secondary outcomes (all P >.05). Conclusion In patients who void with Valsalva, RPS appears to be safe and effective. Between VV and non-Valsalva voiders, there were no differences in rates of subjective success, revisions, or complications, even in patients with Valsalva voiding without appreciable detrusor contraction.",
author = "Anderson, {Blake B.} and Pariser, {Joseph J} and Pearce, {Shane M.} and Volsky, {Jessica G.} and Bales, {Gregory T.} and Chung, {Doreen E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "52--57",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void with Valsalva

AU - Anderson, Blake B.

AU - Pariser, Joseph J

AU - Pearce, Shane M.

AU - Volsky, Jessica G.

AU - Bales, Gregory T.

AU - Chung, Doreen E.

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Objective To compare outcomes after retropubic sling (RPS) in women with and without Valsalva voiding. Methods Women who underwent RPS for stress incontinence from 2010 to 2014 were identified and their baseline characteristics were examined. Valsalva voiding was defined as abdominal straining throughout voiding on preoperative urodynamics. Sub-analysis of those with Valsalva included a subset with detrusor underactivity on urodynamics. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were rates of subjective success, revisions, complications, and voiding dysfunction. Secondary measures were Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) score, post-void residual, and pad use. Results Subjects (n = 141) analyzed included 75 Valsalva voiders (VV) and 66 non-Valsalva voiders. At baseline, there were no differences in age, race, comorbidity, post-void residual, pad use, UDI-6, or capacity. Postoperatively, there were no differences in rates of passing initial void trial, need for clean intermittent catheterization, revisions, complications, or voiding dysfunction. No differences in pad use, UDI-6, or IIQ-7 were seen at 6 or 12 months. Within VV, no differences between patients with and without detrusor underactivity were seen for any primary or secondary outcomes (all P >.05). Conclusion In patients who void with Valsalva, RPS appears to be safe and effective. Between VV and non-Valsalva voiders, there were no differences in rates of subjective success, revisions, or complications, even in patients with Valsalva voiding without appreciable detrusor contraction.

AB - Objective To compare outcomes after retropubic sling (RPS) in women with and without Valsalva voiding. Methods Women who underwent RPS for stress incontinence from 2010 to 2014 were identified and their baseline characteristics were examined. Valsalva voiding was defined as abdominal straining throughout voiding on preoperative urodynamics. Sub-analysis of those with Valsalva included a subset with detrusor underactivity on urodynamics. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were rates of subjective success, revisions, complications, and voiding dysfunction. Secondary measures were Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) score, post-void residual, and pad use. Results Subjects (n = 141) analyzed included 75 Valsalva voiders (VV) and 66 non-Valsalva voiders. At baseline, there were no differences in age, race, comorbidity, post-void residual, pad use, UDI-6, or capacity. Postoperatively, there were no differences in rates of passing initial void trial, need for clean intermittent catheterization, revisions, complications, or voiding dysfunction. No differences in pad use, UDI-6, or IIQ-7 were seen at 6 or 12 months. Within VV, no differences between patients with and without detrusor underactivity were seen for any primary or secondary outcomes (all P >.05). Conclusion In patients who void with Valsalva, RPS appears to be safe and effective. Between VV and non-Valsalva voiders, there were no differences in rates of subjective success, revisions, or complications, even in patients with Valsalva voiding without appreciable detrusor contraction.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962091377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962091377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.031

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.031

M3 - Article

C2 - 26879732

AN - SCOPUS:84962091377

VL - 91

SP - 52

EP - 57

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -