The Journal of urology · 2008
The effect of concomitant prolapse repair on sling outcomes.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anger Jennifer T, Litwin Mark S, Wang Qin, Pashos Chris L, Rodríguez Larissa V
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We analyzed the effect of concomitant prolapse surgery performed at the time of sling surgery on short-term postoperative outcomes in women with urinary incontinence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1999 to 2001 Medicare claims data on a 5% national random sample of female beneficiaries who underwent sling procedures. Subjects were tracked for 12 months after surgery to assess short-term complications. Concomitant prolapse repairs and prolapse repairs performed in the first 12 months after sling surgery were identified by CPT-4 procedure codes. Postoperative complications and treatments were identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes and CPT-4 procedure codes, respectively. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to measure the effect of concomitant prolapse surgery on sling outcomes.
RESULTS: Concomitant prolapse repairs were performed in 34.4% of sling cases. Women who underwent prolapse repair at the time of the sling surgery were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with postoperative outlet obstruction (9.4% vs 5.5%, p <0.007) than those who did not. Women who underwent concomitant prolapse repair were less likely to undergo a repeat procedure for stress incontinence in postoperative year 1 (4.7% vs 10.2%, p = 0.0005). Multivariate analysis revealed that women who underwent prolapse repair at the time of the sling surgery were significantly less likely to undergo a reoperation for prolapse within 1 year after the sling surgery (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22-0.44).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that addressing prolapse at the time of stress incontinence surgery may avoid an early repeat operation for either prolapse or stress incontinence. However, rates of postoperative outlet obstruction are higher.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1999 to 2001 Medicare claims data on a 5% national random sample of female beneficiaries who underwent sling procedures. Subjects were tracked for 12 months after surgery to assess short-term complications. Concomitant prolapse repairs and prolapse repairs performed in the first 12 months after sling surgery were identified by CPT-4 procedure codes. Postoperative complications and treatments were identified by ICD-9 diagnosis codes and CPT-4 procedure codes, respectively. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to measure the effect of concomitant prolapse surgery on sling outcomes.
RESULTS: Concomitant prolapse repairs were performed in 34.4% of sling cases. Women who underwent prolapse repair at the time of the sling surgery were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with postoperative outlet obstruction (9.4% vs 5.5%, p <0.007) than those who did not. Women who underwent concomitant prolapse repair were less likely to undergo a repeat procedure for stress incontinence in postoperative year 1 (4.7% vs 10.2%, p = 0.0005). Multivariate analysis revealed that women who underwent prolapse repair at the time of the sling surgery were significantly less likely to undergo a reoperation for prolapse within 1 year after the sling surgery (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.22-0.44).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that addressing prolapse at the time of stress incontinence surgery may avoid an early repeat operation for either prolapse or stress incontinence. However, rates of postoperative outlet obstruction are higher.