Chughtai Bilal, Buck Jessica, Anger Jennifer, Asfaw Tirsit, Mao Jialin, Lee Richard, Te Alexis, Kaplan Steven, Sedrakyan Art
Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Urologic Reconstruction, Urodynamics, and Female Urology, Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Urol Pract. 2016 Sep;3(5):349-354. doi: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.08.008. Epub 2016 Jun 20.
We compare the use of bulking agents and slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries.
We analyzed data from a 5% national random sample of Medicare claims from 2000 to 2011. Female beneficiaries who underwent a sling or bulking agent procedure were identified based on CPT-4 and ICD-9 procedure codes. Statistical analysis for categorical data determined differences in the distribution of patient demographics and comorbidities. The 90-day adverse events and reinterventions were compared between treatment groups. Time to event analysis was used to determine freedom from reintervention after therapy.
We identified 21,134 and 3,475 patients treated with sling and bulking procedures, respectively. There was a 29.7% increase in the number of sling procedures and a 59.5% decrease in bulking procedures from 2001 to 2011. Patients treated with bulking agents had higher rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, heart failure and renal failure (p <0.01). The 90-day adverse events after both procedures were rare, with the exception of urinary retention, which was increased in women treated with a sling but frequent in both groups (sling 11.3%, bulking agent 8.4%; p <0.01). A smaller proportion of patients who underwent sling surgery had reinterventions (repeat sling 7.4%, bulking agent 38.2%; p <0.01). Overall 53.2% of the patients treated with a sling and 76.3% treated with bulking agents who underwent subsequent procedures were treated with the same procedure at the first intervention.
Sling and bulking procedures are safe in terms of short-term performance, although the rates of retention were high in both groups. Patients treated with reinterventions tend to repeat the same therapy instead of converting to another procedure.
我们比较了填充剂和吊带在女性医疗保险受益人中治疗压力性尿失禁的应用情况。
我们分析了2000年至2011年5%的全国医疗保险索赔随机样本数据。根据CPT-4和ICD-9手术编码确定接受吊带或填充剂手术的女性受益人。对分类数据进行统计分析,以确定患者人口统计学和合并症分布的差异。比较治疗组之间的90天不良事件和再次干预情况。采用事件时间分析来确定治疗后再次干预的自由度。
我们分别确定了21,134例和3,475例接受吊带和填充剂手术治疗的患者。从2001年到2011年,吊带手术数量增加了29.7%,填充剂手术数量减少了59.5%。接受填充剂治疗的患者患糖尿病、心血管疾病、心力衰竭和肾衰竭的比例更高(p<0.01)。两种手术后的90天不良事件都很少见,但尿潴留除外,尿潴留发生率在接受吊带治疗的女性中有所增加,但在两组中都很常见(吊带组11.3%,填充剂组8.4%;p<0.01)。接受吊带手术的患者再次干预的比例较小(再次吊带手术7.4%,填充剂8.2%;p<0.01)。总体而言,接受吊带治疗的患者中有53.2%以及接受填充剂治疗的患者中有76.3%在首次干预后接受后续手术时采用了相同的手术方式。
就短期表现而言,吊带和填充剂手术是安全的,尽管两组的尿潴留发生率都很高。接受再次干预的患者倾向于重复相同的治疗,而不是改用另一种手术方式。