The impact of surgeon operative volume on risk of reoperation within 5 years of mid-urethral sling: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Undesired outcomes after mid-urethral sling (MUS), such as mesh exposure or surgical failure, can necessitate further procedures. The objective of this review is to evaluate the association between surgeon operative volume and the risk of reoperation after MUS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were selected through an electronic literature search from database and references of the studies included. Databases were searched for original studies reporting on the MUS procedure, reoperation, and operative volume. Random effects models were used to estimate the pooled OR of reoperation according to surgeon volume. Outcomes were divided into two categories: mesh removal and/or revision and subsequent surgery for treatment of SUI.

RESULTS

A total of 2,304 abstracts were screened, and 51 studies were assessed through full-text reading. Seven studies were included in the systematic review. High-volume and low-volume surgeons were defined differently in various studies. The odds ratio of the mesh removal/revision procedure was 1.26 (95%CI 1.03-1.53) among those who received their surgery from a low-volume surgeon compared with those who received their surgery from a high-volume surgeon as defined by the studies. The odds ratio of repeated incontinence procedures was 1.18 (95% CI 1.01-1.37).

CONCLUSIONS

The odds of a repeat incontinence procedure appear higher if the surgery is performed by a low-volume surgeon, although these results need to be interpreted with caution as the definition of low-volume vs high-volume surgeon varied between studies. As such, operative volume should be included in surgical reporting, and future research should utilize surgical volume as either a continuous exposure or a standardized value of low- vs high-volume MUS surgeons.