Sling plication for persistent stress urinary incontinence after midurethral sling.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence after midurethral sling placement is not uncommon. Treatment options include placement of a second midurethral sling, autologous fascial sling, retropubic urethropexy, or urethral bulking. Shortening of the sling by plication has also been suggested as an alternative option which may reduce operative time, cost, risk of trocar injury, and mesh burden. In this video, we aimed to demonstrate our technique and experience on sling plication. METHODS: The key steps of the procedure are as follows: (1) suburethral incision and sharp dissection to identify the sling; (2) mobilization of the suburethral portion of the sling; (3) plication with two interrupted, horizontal sutures placed 1 cm laterally on each side; (4) application of upward pressure while tying the sutures and tensioning the sling. In our experience, we have found this technique to be most successful for retropubic slings, especially when performed within 2-12 weeks of the initial surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Sling plication is an effective and minimally invasive option to treat persistent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling procedures. It avoids additional mesh burden or more invasive retropubic surgery and should be offered as a treatment option for appropriately counseled patients.

Predictors of sling revision after mid-urethral sling procedures: a case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient characteristics and surgical factors predictive of complications requiring mid-urethral sling (MUS) revision/removal. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary academic centre in Canada. POPULATION: One hundred and seven women undergoing MUS revision/removal between 2005 and 2016 were matched with 214 controls by date of index MUS procedure (2:1 ratio). METHODS: Data on patient and surgical factors were obtained via manual electronic and paper chart review. Three sets of pre-specified simple and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to: (1) examine previously reported risk factors for MUS revision after primary surgical treatment; (2) identify preoperative predictors of MUS complications requiring revision/removal; and (3) identify surgical factors associated with this outcome after adjusting for potential confounding factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for patient and surgical factors. RESULTS: The median time to MUS revision was 153 days (interquartile range, IQR 49-432 days). Active smoking status (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13-4.63, P = 0.03), having had a previous hysterectomy (OR 3.88, 95% CI 2.02-7.46, P < 0.01), and undergoing concomitant pelvic organ prolapse surgery at the time of the index MUS procedure (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32-5.52, P < 0.01) were independently associated with the need for MUS revision/removal. Sling type (obturator versus retropubic), method of tensioning (to cough versus over instrument), anaesthetic type, and estimated blood loss were not associated with this outcome in the analysis presented here. CONCLUSIONS: Active smoking status, having had a previous hysterectomy, and undergoing concomitant surgery for pelvic organ prolapse are risk factors for requiring subsequent MUS revision/removal. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Risk factors for sling revision include smoking, previous hysterectomy, and concomitant prolapse surgery.

Comparing postoperative voiding dysfunction after mid-urethral sling using either a Babcock or Kelly clamp tensioning technique.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare postoperative urinary retention using the Babcock and Kelly clamps for retropubic midurethral sling (RPS) tensioning. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of isolated RPS procedures from December 2010 through April 2016 by five fellowship-trained surgeons at two institutions. Slings were tensioned with a Babcock clamp by grasping a 3-mm midline fold of mesh (RPS-B) or a Kelly clamp as a spacer between the sling and suburethral tissue (RPS-K). Assessment of urinary retention included the primary outcome of postoperative catheterization and several secondary outcomes, including discharge home with a catheter, within 1 year of surgery. Analysis of covariance was used to compute the mean difference in duration of catheterization and log-binomial regression was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 240 patients. The RPS-B group had a lower body mass index and was more likely to be menopausal, have had pelvic organ prolapse surgery, and have a lower maximum urethral closure pressure than the RPS-K group. The mean duration of catheterization was similar, as demonstrated by the crude (0.21 days [-0.30-0.71]) and BMI-adjusted (0.07 days [-0.41-0.55]) mean difference in duration of catheterization. The incidence of postoperative OAB symptoms was comparable between the groups (BMI-adjusted RR: 0.95 (0.80-1.1)), and the incidence of revision did not differ (p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The Babcock and Kelly clamp tensioning techniques appear comparable, with a low incidence of prolonged postoperative catheterization. Most catheters were removed on the day of the surgery. It is reasonable to tension retropubic midurethral slings with either method.

Concurrent midurethral sling excision or lysis at the time of repeat sling for treatment of recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Limited evidence guides operative technique in primary midurethral sling (MUS) lysis or excision at the time of repeat sling placement for persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Our objective is to compare subjective improvement in patients undergoing repeat MUS placement with and without concurrent primary sling lysis or removal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study with a prospective survey of patients who underwent two MUS placements for SUI at a single institution from January 1996 to December 2015. After patient identification, the electronic record was queried for demographic and perioperative data. Subjects then completed the Urogenital Distress Index, (UDI-6), Incontinence Severity Index (ISI), and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7). Subjects were also asked if they would choose to undergo repeat MUS surgery again. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included. 17 out of 61 (28%) underwent concomitant primary sling lysis or excision, and 44 out of 61 (72%) did not. Fifty-seven percent (n = 35) completed the survey. Of the respondents, the median ISI score was 4 (1-8), with no difference between groups; 14 out of 35 (40%) reported the presence of bothersome urge incontinence, 11 out of 35 (31%) reported bothersome stress urinary incontinence, and 8 out of 35 (23%) reported symptoms of voiding dysfunction, with no difference between groups. 57% of patients (20 out of 35) would undergo repeat MUS placement again. CONCLUSIONS: In a small cohort, concurrent excision of the primary sling at the time of repeat MUS did not improve subjective outcomes. Many patients reported urinary urgency and voiding symptoms, and only about half of patients would choose to undergo the surgery again if given the choice.

Virtue Quadratic Male Sling for stress incontinence-surgical guide for placement and delayed revision.

The algorithm for surgical management of post prostatectomy incontinence classically includes male slings and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement. The Virtue Quadratic Male Sling was designed to provide both urethral elevation and prepubic compression making it a viable option for a wider spectrum of incontinent men whose symptoms range from mild to severe. With a focus on two key steps of the surgery, (I) sling fixation (II) use of intraoperative retrograde leak point pressure (RLPP), this guide is intended to outline a safe and efficacious treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Intriguingly, the sling can be revised in the event of refractory or worsening leakage, and does not preclude the placement of an AUS should it be needed. This paper describes a step by step approach to performing the procedure as well as expert tips to improve outcomes and avoid/manage complications that have been learned over the years.