Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-05-2015 | Original Article

Outcomes of midurethral sling procedures in women with mixed urinary incontinence

Authors: Jonathan L. Gleason, Alison M. Parden, Victoria Jauk, Alicia Ballard, Vivian Sung, Holly E. Richter

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 5/2015

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to compare midurethral sling (MUS) urinary outcomes in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) only versus mixed UI (MUI).

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent primary MUS surgery for SUI. MUI was defined as at least “moderately” bothersome urgency and stress incontinence on the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) subscale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20). The primary outcome was SUI cure defined by a response of “no,” “not at all,” or “somewhat” bothersome SUI on both of the two UDI-6 stress subscale items. Symptom impact was assessed using the Urinary Impact Questionnaire (UIQ-7). Multivariable models assessed the effect of MUI on SUI outcomes.

Results

One thousand one hundred and ninety-one primary MUS procedures were reviewed. Seven hundred and fifteen out of 1,191 (60 %) questionnaires were returned and 534 out of 715 (75 %) had completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Mean (±SD) follow-up time was 35 ± 15 months. Women with MUI had a higher (worse) baseline total score on the UDI-6 (p ≤ 0.001). A lower proportion of women with MUI had SUI success compared with the SUI only group (64 vs 84.5 %, p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, women in the MUI group were at an increased risk of SUI failure (OR 2.5, 95 % CI 1.6, 4.0), but greater improvements in UDI-6 (−31.6 ± 30.6 vs −15.5 ± 25.1), and UIQ-7 scores (−21.7 ± 35.3 vs −15.1 ± 28.2) compared with women with SUI only (all p < 0.02).

Conclusions

Women with MUI are at an increased risk of SUI failure after MUS compared with women with SUI only, but experience greater overall improvement in the impact of urinary symptoms on the quality of life.

Melville JL, Katon W, Delaney K et al (2005) Urinary incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med 165:537–542CrossRefPubMed

Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26CrossRefPubMed

Brubaker L, Moalli P, Richter HE et al (2009) Challenges in designing a pragmatic clinical trial: the mixed incontinence – medical or surgical approach (MIMOSA) trial experience. Clin Trials 6:355–364CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Brubaker L, Lukacz ES, Burgio K et al (2011) Mixed incontinence: comparing definitions in non-surgical patients. Neurourol Urodyn 30:47–51CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Jain P, Jirschele K, Botros SM et al (2011) Effectiveness of midurethral slings in mixed urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 22:923–932CrossRefPubMed

Barber MD, Kleeman S, Karram MM et al (2008) Risk factors associated with failure 1 year after retropubic or transobturator midurethral slings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:666CrossRefPubMed

Richter HE, Litman HJ, Lukacz ES et al (2011) Demographic and clinical predictors of treatment failure one year after midurethral sling surgery. Obstet Gynecol 117:913–921CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Palva K, Nilsson CG (2011) Prevalence of urinary urgency symptoms decreases by mid-urethral sling procedures for treatment of stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 22:1241–1247CrossRefPubMed

Abdel-fattah M, Mostafa A, Young D et al (2011) Evaluation of transobturator tension-free vaginal tapes in the management of women with mixed urinary incontinence: one-year outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:150CrossRefPubMed

10.

Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM et al (2010) Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 362:2066–2076CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

11.

Uebersaw J, Wyman J, Shumaker S et al (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139CrossRef

12.

Herzog A, Diokno A, Brown M et al (1990) Two-year incidence, remission, and change patterns, of urinary incontinence in noninstitutionalized older adults. J Gerontol 45:M67–M74CrossRefPubMed

13.

Shumaker S, Wyman J, Uebersax J et al (1994) Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Qual Life Res 3:291–306CrossRefPubMed

14.

Yalcin I, Bump R (2003) Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:98–101CrossRefPubMed

15.

Burgio KL, Goode PS, Richter HE et al (2006) Global ratings of patient satisfaction and perceptions of improvement with treatment for urinary incontinence: validation of three global patient ratings. Neurourol Urodyn 25:411–417CrossRefPubMed

16.

Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:103–113CrossRefPubMed

17.

Petros PE (2011) Mixed urinary incontinence—time to uncouple urgency from stress? Int Urogynecol J 22:919–921CrossRefPubMed

18.

Stav K, Dwyer PL, Rosamilia A, Schierlitz L, Lim YN, Lee J (2010) Risk factors of treatment failure of midurethral sling procedures for women with urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 21:149–155CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kassis NC, Washington BB, Korbly NB, Lopes VV, Sung VW (2013) Effect of intrinsic sphincter deficiency on midurethral sling outcomes in women with mixed urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19:132–136CrossRefPubMed

20.

Barber MD, Spino CS, Janz NK et al (2009) The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the pelvic floor distress inventory and pelvic floor impact questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:580–587CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

21.

Dyer KY, Xu Y, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Markland A, Rahn D, Chai TC, Stoddard A, Lukacz E, Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (2011) Minimum important difference for validated instruments in women with urge incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 30:1319–1324PubMed

22.

Kudish BI, Shveiky MD, Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Gutman RE (2010) A comparison of transobturator versus retropubic midurethral slings for mixed urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 16:113–120CrossRefPubMed

Title: Outcomes of midurethral sling procedures in women with mixed urinary incontinence
Authors: Jonathan L. Gleason
Alison M. Parden
Victoria Jauk
Alicia Ballard
Vivian Sung
Holly E. Richter
Publication date: 01-05-2015
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2580-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Outcomes of midurethral sling procedures in women with mixed urinary incontinence

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy

Laser vaginal rejuvenation: not ready for prime time—response to comments by Maggiore et al.

Label-free, three-dimensional multiphoton microscopy of the connective tissue in the anterior vaginal wall

Patient and public involvement in urogynecology: a pause for reflection before taking a leap

Effects of posture and squatting on the dynamics of micturition: response to Bush and Liedl

Quantitative assessment of new MRI-based measurements to differentiate low and high stages of pelvic organ prolapse using support vector machines