The autologous fascia pubovaginal sling for complicated female

Authors

  • Blayne K. Welk Sunnybrook Hospital, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Sender Herschorn Sunnybrook Hospital, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.327

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to review our contemporary experience with autologous fascia pubovaginal slings (AF-PVS) in the era of the midurethral sling.

Methods: A retrospective review was completed to identify all
patients who underwent an AF-PVS between 2002 and 2009. A
cross-sectional questionnaire was used to assess postoperative urinary- specific quality of life (consisting of the Urogenital Distress Inventory [UDI-6] and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaires [IIQ-7]).

Results: We identified 33 patients. They had failed a median of
two previous incontinence treatments. Of these patients, 16 (48%) had failed a previous midurethral sling, and of these half had experienced a significant mesh erosion necessitating mesh removal. Preoperative median incontinence pad usage was 5/day. After a median follow-up of 16 months from the time of AF-PVS, the median pad usage had decreased to 1/day (p = 0.003). A third of the patients had postoperative urgency, and only 1 patient continues to use intermittent catheterization. The median IIQ-7 score was 19/100, and the median UDI-6 score was 44/100. Overall quality of life was mixed-to-delighted in 62% of patients.

Conclusions: The AF-PVS has reasonable outcomes in a diverse
population of patients, despite failure of other treatment modalities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Blayne K. Welk, Sunnybrook Hospital, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

Sender Herschorn, Sunnybrook Hospital, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

Downloads

Published

2013-02-24

How to Cite

Welk, B. K., & Herschorn, S. (2013). The autologous fascia pubovaginal sling for complicated female. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 6(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.327

Issue

Section

Original Research