2020UrogynecologyRequires access

Rates of Sling Procedures and Revisions—A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Study

C. Emi Bretschneider, Julia Geynisman‐Tan, Margaret G. Mueller, Sarah Collins, Christina Lewicky‐Gaupp, Kimberly Kenton

Open publisher page 9 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe trends in sling procedures and revisions, including fascial slings and midurethral slings (MUS) using a large, national database with respect to the 2011 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mesh-related safety communication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2010 to 2018, evaluating the prevalence of sling revision and fascial slings and their trends over time. Patients who underwent MUS, fascial slings, and sling revisions were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Sling revisions and fascial slings were evaluated as a proportion of the total number of MUS performed per year. Three distinct periods were evaluated in relation to the 2011 FDA communication: 2010 to 2012, 2012 to 2015, and 2015 to 2018. Observed trends were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients with a P value less than 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 32,657 slings were captured: 32,389 MUS and 268 fascial slings. The rate of sling revisions was low (0.4% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2015). Between 2012 and 2015, the rate of sling revision increased significantly (R = 1, P = 0.002); following 2015, the rate of sling revisions decreased significantly over time (R = -0.96, P = 0.04). The rate of fascial slings between 2012 and 2015 increased significantly (R = 0.95, P = 0.047); however, the rate plateaued starting in 2015 (R = -0.49, -P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that MUS remain the preferred procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence despite the recent FDA communications with MUS representing 99% of sling procedures during the study period.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe trends in sling procedures and revisions, including fascial slings and midurethral slings (MUS) using a large, national database with respect to the 2011 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mesh-related safety communication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2010 to 2018, evaluating the prevalence of sling revision and fascial slings and their trends over time. Patients who underwent MUS, fascial slings, and sling revisions were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Sling revisions and fascial slings were evaluated as a proportion of the total number of MUS performed per year. Three distinct periods were evaluated in relation to the 2011 FDA communication: 2010 to 2012, 2012 to 2015, and 2015 to 2018. Observed trends were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients with a P value less than 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 32,657 slings were captured: 32,389 MUS and 268 fascial slings. The rate of sling revisions was low (0.4% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2015). Between 2012 and 2015, the rate of sling revision increased significantly (R = 1, P = 0.002); following 2015, the rate of sling revisions decreased significantly over time (R = -0.96, P = 0.04). The rate of fascial slings between 2012 and 2015 increased significantly (R = 0.95, P = 0.047); however, the rate plateaued starting in 2015 (R = -0.49, -P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that MUS remain the preferred procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence despite the recent FDA communications with MUS representing 99% of sling procedures during the study period.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe trends in sling procedures and revisions, including fascial slings and midurethral slings (MUS) using a large, national database with respect to the 2011 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mesh-related safety communication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2010 to 2018, evaluating the prevalence of sling revision and fascial slings and their trends over time. Patients who underwent MUS, fascial slings, and sling revisions were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Sling revisions and fascial slings were evaluated as a proportion of the total number of MUS performed per year. Three distinct periods were evaluated in relation to the 2011 FDA communication: 2010 to 2012, 2012 to 2015, and 2015 to 2018. Observed trends were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients with a P value less than 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 32,657 slings were captured: 32,389 MUS and 268 fascial slings. The rate of sling revisions was low (0.4% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2015). Between 2012 and 2015, the rate of sling revision increased significantly (R = 1, P = 0.002); following 2015, the rate of sling revisions decreased significantly over time (R = -0.96, P = 0.04). The rate of fascial slings between 2012 and 2015 increased significantly (R = 0.95, P = 0.047); however, the rate plateaued starting in 2015 (R = -0.49, -P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that MUS remain the preferred procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence despite the recent FDA communications with MUS representing 99% of sling procedures during the study period.

Key concepts: Sling (weapon), Medicine, Current Procedural Terminology, Surgery, Cohort, National database, Database, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Rates of Sling Procedures and Revisions—A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Study — Research Paper | ScholarLens