RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Long-term urinary outcomes after transvaginal uterovaginal prolapse repair with and without concomitant midurethral slings
Giugale, L., Sridhar, A., Ferrante, K. L., Komesu, Y. M., Meyer, I., Smith, A. L., Myers, D., Visco, A. G., Paraiso, M. F. R., Mazloomdoost, D., Gantz, M., Zyczynski, H. M., & NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Netwo (2022). Long-term urinary outcomes after transvaginal uterovaginal prolapse repair with and without concomitant midurethral slings. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, 28(3), 142-148. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001160
IMPORTANCE: Many health care providers place concomitant midurethral slings during pelvic organ prolapse repair, yet growing evidence supports staged midurethral sling placement.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare urinary function after transvaginal uterovaginal prolapse repair with and without midurethral sling.
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial (hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension vs mesh hysteropexy). Our primary outcome was Urinary Distress Inventory score (UDI-6) through 5 years compared between women with and without a concomitant sling within prolapse repair arms. Sling effect was adjusted for select clinical variables and interaction terms (α = .05).
RESULTS: The sling group included 90 women (43 hysteropexy, 47 hysterectomy), and the no-sling group included 93 women (48 hysteropexy, 45 hysterectomy). At baseline, the sling group reported more bothersome stress (66% vs 36%, P < 0.001) and urgency incontinence (69% vs 48%, P = 0.007). For hysteropexy, there were no significant long-term differences in UDI-6 scores or bothersome urine leakage between sling groups. For hysterectomy, women with sling had better UDI-6 scores across time points (adjusted mean difference, -5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to -0.2); bothersome stress and urgency leakage were less common in the sling group (stress adjusted odds ratio, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.0-0.4]; urge adjusted odds ratio, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Treatment for stress incontinence over 5 years was similar in the sling (7.9%) versus no-sling (7.6%) groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Five-year urinary outcomes of concomitant midurethral sling may vary by type of transvaginal prolapse surgery, with possible benefit of midurethral sling at the time of vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension but not after mesh hysteropexy.
