You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Incontinence, Evaluation & Therapy (III)1 Apr 20131360 COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF SLING SURGERY IN MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES Anne M. Suskind, J. Quentin Clemens, Rodney L. Dunn, John M. Hollingsworth, Zhang Yun, Bruce L. Jacobs, Florian R. Schroeck, and Brent K. Hollenbeck Anne M. SuskindAnne M. Suskind Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , J. Quentin ClemensJ. Quentin Clemens Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , Rodney L. DunnRodney L. Dunn Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , John M. HollingsworthJohn M. Hollingsworth Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , Zhang YunZhang Yun Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , Bruce L. JacobsBruce L. Jacobs Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , Florian R. SchroeckFlorian R. Schroeck Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author , and Brent K. HollenbeckBrent K. Hollenbeck Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.2714AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Regulatory agencies have expressed concerns about the use of vaginally placed mesh for stress urinary incontinence. In order to address these concerns, we compared outcomes of mesh versus non–mesh slings in Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing sling surgery from 2006 to 2008 in hospital outpatient departments and in hospital based ambulatory surgery centers using a 20% national sample of claims. An algorithm was developed using “C” HCPCS (Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System) codes to categorize slings as using either mesh or non–mesh materials. Each subject was followed for 1 year after their procedure for the following outcomes: complications, diagnosis and management of outlet obstruction, additional testing, and additional incontinence procedures. Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of each complication based on whether slings were placed with mesh versus non–mesh materials and whether differences reflected the place of service. RESULTS There were 6,698 mesh and 445 non–mesh sling procedures performed in Medicare beneficiaries between 2006–2008. Demographic characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for post–operative urologic complications, infectious complications, new diagnoses of urgency, pelvic pain, or bladder outlet obstruction, or for repeat incontinence procedures (see Table). Procedures associated with the management of bladder outlet obstruction; however, were significantly higher among beneficiaries who received non–mesh compared to mesh slings, at 19.3% versus 13.9% (p<0.01), with an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI 1.18–1.92, p<0.01). Place of service was not a predictor of the type of material used, with a 1.20 odds (95% CI 0.66, 2.17, p=0.55) of having a mesh sling performed in a hospital based ambulatory surgery center compared to a hospital outpatient department. CONCLUSIONS Complications after sling surgery were uncommon regardless of whether mesh was used and were not affected by the setting of the surgery. Our findings suggest that mesh used for SUI is not associated with increased complications within 1 year of surgery. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e556 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Anne M. Suskind Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author J. Quentin Clemens Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author Rodney L. Dunn Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author John M. Hollingsworth Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author Zhang Yun Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author Bruce L. Jacobs Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author Florian R. Schroeck Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author Brent K. Hollenbeck Ann Arbor, MI More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...