You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Female Urology1 Apr 2015MP81-20 THE LONG-TERM SAFETY, TRENDS AND RE-INTERVENTIONS IN THE SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE Bilal Chughtai, Adrien Bernstein, Jessica Buck, Jialin Mao, Abby Isaacs, Richard Lee, Alexis Te, Steven Kaplan, and Art Sedrakyan Bilal ChughtaiBilal Chughtai More articles by this author , Adrien BernsteinAdrien Bernstein More articles by this author , Jessica BuckJessica Buck More articles by this author , Jialin MaoJialin Mao More articles by this author , Abby IsaacsAbby Isaacs More articles by this author , Richard LeeRichard Lee More articles by this author , Alexis TeAlexis Te More articles by this author , Steven KaplanSteven Kaplan More articles by this author , and Art SedrakyanArt Sedrakyan More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2898AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can greatly decrease a women's quality of life, and prevalence reports vary greatly indicating that up to 35% of women suffer from this condition. We determined short-term safety and long-term re-interventions following surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS We analyzed a 5% national random sample of Medicare claims from 2000 to 2011 of female beneficiaries who underwent sling or bulking procedures, based on CPT-4 and ICD-9 procedure codes. Individual patient's first sling or bulking procedure in the claim was identified. 90-day adverse events and re-interventions during the follow-up period were captured using ICD-9 diagnosis, procedure and CPT-4 codes. Statistical analysis for categorical data was performed to determine differences in distribution of patient demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes including 90-day adverse events and re-interventions were compared between treatment groups. Time to event was used to determine freedom from re-intervention after therapy. RESULTS We identified 21,134 and 3,475 patients undergoing sling and bulking procedures between 2000 and 2011. There was a 29.7% increase in sling procedures and 59.5% decrease in bulking procedures from 2000 to 2011. 90-day adverse events of both procedures were rare, with exception of mild risk of urinary retention (Sling 11.3%, Bulk 8.4%). Smaller proportion of patients receiving slings had re-interventions compared to those who had bulking therapy. 53.2% sling patients and 76.3% bulking patients who had subsequent procedures received same procedure at first re-intervention. CONCLUSIONS Both sling and bulking procedures are safe in terms of short-term performance. Patients who received initial treatment of bulking agent injection are more likely to have re-interventions. Patients who had re-interventions tend to repeat the therapy instead of converting to another procedure. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e1036 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Bilal Chughtai More articles by this author Adrien Bernstein More articles by this author Jessica Buck More articles by this author Jialin Mao More articles by this author Abby Isaacs More articles by this author Richard Lee More articles by this author Alexis Te More articles by this author Steven Kaplan More articles by this author Art Sedrakyan More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract
Dec 15, 2015
+ 3
Open Access