The evolution of incontinence into resolved, refractory and urgency urinary incontinence following sling placement at time of prolapse repair in a large urodynamic cohort.

Purpose: To improve counseling in women at risk of refractory and/or urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) following sling placement at time of prolapse repair, we created an outcome model to characterize changes in storage dysfunction.

Materials And Methods: We identified 139 women who underwent urodynamics followed by sling or no sling placement at the time of prolapse repair over a 6-year period. Our primary outcome was the presence of UUI following sling placement. Data were analyzed in SAS using chi-square, Fisher's exact, Student's t-test, and Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results: At baseline, the sling group had significantly higher subjective (62/81 [76.5%] vs. 18/58 [31.0%]; p<0.001), objective (62/81 [76.5%] vs. 6/58 [10.3%]; p<0.001), and occult (41/81 [50.6%] vs. 6/58 [10.3%]; p<0.001) stress urinary incontinence (SUI); and rates of subjective and objective UUI were similar to the no sling group prior to surgery. After surgery (mean follow-up 859 days) there was no difference with or without sling, in the rate of SUI (subjective, objective) and further SUI treatments (bulking agent, repeat sling). Higher rates of (13/81 [16.0%] vs. 6/58 [10.3%]; p=0.454) and refractory (31/81 [38.3%] vs. 14/58 [24.1%]; p=0.048) UUI were noted in the sling group following surgery. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, a greater proportion of women in the no sling group did not report UUI at longest follow-up (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.06; p=0.081).

Conclusions: Women should be counseled on the risk of and refractory UUI following sling placement at time of prolapse repair.