Cost Analysis of Vaginal Anti-incontinence Procedures at a Tertiary Care Center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of 3 vaginal procedures used in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1 tertiary institution. METHODS: The costs of autologous fascial sling (AFS), synthetic mid-urethral sling (MUS), and anterior vaginal wall suspension (AVWS) were analyzed from a prospective long-term database, with follow-up to 5 years after these procedures. Original costing data were obtained for operating room, medical and surgical supplies, pharmacy, anesthesia supplies, and room and bed over 2 consecutive years. Included were complete cost data provided by our institution from Medicare (2012) and private payer insurance. RESULTS: For the year 2013, the AVWS, AFS, and MUS had total median costs of $4513, $5721, and $3311, respectively. Total cost and all subcosts except for pharmacy costs were significantly different for each procedure. AVWS and MUS placement differed from each other regarding the cost of anesthesia and hospital stay, which was higher for AVWS. Compared to AFS, AVWS had significantly lower total costs due to decreased costs associated with operating time, hospital stay, and surgical supplies (P <.0001). At 5 years after these procedures, synthetic slings had less frequent follow-up visits. The most common revision for SUI failure was a bulking agent injection. CONCLUSION: Initial costs of vaginal SUI procedures at our institution fared favorably compared to SUI procedures reported in the contemporary US literature. Long-term costs can vary based on physician preference in follow-up routine and etiology of SUI.

Asymptomatic Obstructive Ureterolithiasis Due to a Periureteral Venous Ring.

Background: Periureteral venous rings are a rare congenital anomaly involving the inferior vena cava (IVC) and the right ureter, where the ureter courses through a venous ring made by the duplication of the IVC during embryogenesis. This anatomic anomaly is also referred to as a transcaval ureter. Although most patients are asymptomatic and radiographic findings are incidental, some patients can be symptomatic. We present the first reported case of asymptomatic obstructive ureterolithiasis at the level of a periureteral venous ring that was effectively treated with endoscopic management. Case Presentation: A 47-year-old woman was found to have right hydroureteronephrosis on MRI. Further CT imaging showed an obstructing ureteral stone at the level of a periureteral venous ring. After initial decompression with ureteral stenting, she underwent ureteroscopy that revealed the ureteral stone at the level of the venous anomaly. The stone was fragmented and removed with laser lithotripsy and stone basket manipulation. After a period of ureteral stenting and removal, she had improved hydroureteronephrosis, no symptoms of ureteral obstruction, and stable renal function. Given these findings, she elected for surveillance with imaging in lieu of any reconstructive procedure to transpose the ureter around the venous anomaly. Conclusions: We present the first reported case of obstructive ureterolithiasis at the level of a periureteral venous ring. Our experience suggests that, with preoperative ureteral stenting, obstructing ureteral stones in the setting of an IVC anomaly can be managed with retrograde flexible ureteroscopy. Conservative laser settings and minimal torqueing of the ureteroscope are advised given adjacent vascular anomaly. Cases wherein the affected ureteral segment is too constricted or tortuous to allow for stone passage or for ureteroscopy may require management by percutaneous antegrade intervention. Surgical reconstruction of the ureter should also be considered.

Economic analyses of stress urinary incontinence surgical procedures in women.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the quality of economic analysis (EA) of surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. METHODS: A MEDLINE search on EA for SUI surgical procedures for the years 2000-2014 included the MeSH terms "tension-free vaginal tape," "TVT," "trans-obturator tape," "TOT," "Burch colposuspension" (BC), "stress urinary incontinence," "economic analysis," and "cost-effectiveness analysis." Important criteria for evaluating articles were selected from panels that set out criteria to evaluate EA [Scales CD, Jr., Christopher SS, American Urological Association 32:121-128, 2013], [Hsieh MH, Maxwell MV, J Urol 178 1867-1874, 2007], [Wu JM, Catherine CM, Conover MM, et al., Obstet Gynecol 123 1201-1206, 2014]. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were identified: TVT compared to BC (6), to other surgical procedures for SUI (1), to TOT (3) and to the mini-sling (1); open BC compared to laparoscopic BC (1), and analysis of various slings and meshes for various types of incontinence (1). Articles originated from: United States (3), Europe (4), United Kingdom (4), and Canada (2). Eight described cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), two cost-utility analysis, and three cost comparison. Follow-up time for patients ranged from 6 to 24 months in eight articles, with four having a minimum of 24 months follow-up. Studies mostly adhered to the criteria, however indirect costs, sensitivity analysis, and efficacy parameters varied. Long-term synthetic sling-related complications were not included. CONCLUSION: Although CEA for SUI surgery is a burgeoning field, study comparisons remain difficult due to some variability, including health care delivery systems. As women live longer, long-term data will become critical as complications and reoperations can affect the real cost of SUI corrective procedures. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:1040-1045, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Prolapse Recurrence after Transvaginal Mesh Removal.

PURPOSE: We determined the rate of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after transvaginal mesh removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval a longitudinally collected database of women undergoing transvaginal mesh removal for complications after transvaginal mesh placement with at least 1 year minimum followup was queried for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence. Recurrent prolapse was defined as greater than stage 1 on examination or the need for reoperation at the site of transvaginal mesh removal. Outcome measures were based on POP-Q (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) at the last visit. Patients were grouped into 3 groups, including group 1--recurrent prolapse in the same compartment as transvaginal mesh removal, 2--persistent prolapse and 3--prolapse in a compartment different than transvaginal mesh removal. RESULTS: Of 73 women 52 met study inclusion criteria from 2007 to 2013, including 73% who presented with multiple indications for transvaginal mesh removal. The mean interval between insertion and removal was 45 months (range 10 to 165). Overall mean followup after transvaginal mesh removal was 30 months (range 12 to 84). In group 1 (recurrent prolapse) the rate was 15% (6 of 40 patients). Four women underwent surgery for recurrent prolapse at a mean 7 of months (range 5 to 10). Two patients elected observation. The rate of persistent prolapse (group 2) was 23% (12 of 52 patients). Three women underwent prolapse reoperation at a mean of 10 months (range 8 to 12). In group 3 (de novo/different compartment prolapse) the rate was 6% (3 of 52 patients). One woman underwent surgical repair at 52 months. CONCLUSIONS: At a mean 2.5-year followup 62% of patients (32 of 52) did not have recurrent or persistent prolapse after transvaginal mesh removal and 85% (44 of 52) did not undergo any further procedure for prolapse. Specifically for pelvic organ prolapse in the same compartment as transvaginal mesh removal 12% of patients had recurrence, of whom 8% underwent prolapse repair.