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.