Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 9/2018

01-09-2018 | Original Article

Readmission and reoperation after midurethral sling

Authors: Erik D. Hokenstad, Amy E. Glasgow, Elizabeth B. Habermann, John A. Occhino

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We aimed to determine the rate of readmission and reoperation for patients undergoing midurethral sling (MUS) placement for stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried to identify all isolated MUS placed from 2012 through 2015 using the Current Procedural Terminology 4 (CPT-4) code for MUS with or without cystoscopy (57,288 ± 52,000). The cohort was then reviewed for unplanned, related readmissions and reoperations within 30 days of MUS placement.

Results

Isolated MUS was placed in 9910 patients. Fifty-eight (0.59%) patients were readmitted and 81 (0.82%) had reoperation. The most common indications for readmission were related to the urinary tract, i.e., urinary retention (27.6%), non-surgical-site-related infection (15.5%), and medical related issues (15.5%) The most common indications for reoperation were urinary tract (60.5%), gastrointestinal (7.4%), and gynecologic, i.e., examination under anesthesia (6.2%). Body mass index (BMI) was less (p = 0.001), and operative time (p = 0.014) and length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.001) longer in patients who were readmitted. Those who underwent reoperation had longer LOS than those who did not have reoperation (p < 0.001). Upon multivariate analysis, BMI <25 (all p < 0.05) and longer LOS maintained statistical significance as risk factors for those who experienced readmission or reoperation (p = 0.0406, p < 0001).

Conclusions

Isolated MUS placement has low 30-day readmission and reoperation rates. Increased LOS was associated with readmission, while increased LOS and BMI <25 were associated with reoperation within 30 days.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Jonsson Funk M. P.J. Levin, and J.M. Wu, Trends in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):845–51.CrossRefPubMed Jonsson Funk M. P.J. Levin, and J.M. Wu, Trends in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):845–51.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Nager C, et al. Position statement on mesh midurethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(3):123–5.CrossRefPubMed Nager C, et al. Position statement on mesh midurethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(3):123–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418–28.CrossRefPubMed Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418–28.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Zuckerman RB, et al. Readmissions, observation, and the hospital readmissions reduction program. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1543–51.CrossRefPubMed Zuckerman RB, et al. Readmissions, observation, and the hospital readmissions reduction program. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1543–51.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Surgeons, A.C.o. User Guide for the 2014 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File (PUF). 2015. Surgeons, A.C.o. User Guide for the 2014 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File (PUF). 2015.
8.
go back to reference Ford AA, et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD006375. Ford AA, et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD006375.
10.
go back to reference Unger CA, Rizzo AE, Ridgeway B. Indications and risk factors for midurethral sling revision. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):117–22.CrossRefPubMed Unger CA, Rizzo AE, Ridgeway B. Indications and risk factors for midurethral sling revision. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):117–22.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Ripperda CM et al. Predictors of early postoperative voiding dysfunction and other complications following a midurethral sling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5). Ripperda CM et al. Predictors of early postoperative voiding dysfunction and other complications following a midurethral sling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5).
Metadata
Title
Readmission and reoperation after midurethral sling
Authors
Erik D. Hokenstad
Amy E. Glasgow
Elizabeth B. Habermann
John A. Occhino
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3551-9

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

International Urogynecology Journal 9/2018 Go to the issue