• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Urologists, GYNs demonstrate slings’ safety

    Seth A. Cohen, MDSeth A. Cohen, MD Shlomo Raz, MDShlomo Raz, MD

    Dr. Cohen is a fellow in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery and Dr. Raz is professor of surgery (urology), UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles. Dr. Raz is a member of the Urology Times Editorial Council.

     

    An abstract authored by Löppenberg et al is an interesting analysis of information from a respected prospective database examining variations in the quality of care provided to patients undergoing sling placement by gynecologists and urologists. An article discussing the research appears in the May 2016 issue of Urology Times.

    Related: Does specialty affect sling complication rate?

    A significant limitation of this study is its inability to evaluate complications beyond 30 days postoperatively. Outcomes associated with sling placement, such as obstruction, delayed pelvic pain, mesh exposure/extrusion, recurrent UTIs, dyspareunia, and persistent incontinence can declare themselves in the extended recovery period and would not be captured in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Many of these complications are what trigger ultimate reoperation in this patient population.

    That being said, considering the large cohort studied, there is very little indictment to be made about the quality of surgical care offered by gynecologists or urologists in terms of early complications of sling placement. Patients and referring physicians should feel comfortable that a knowledgeable urologist or gynecologist will have minimal complications in the first 30 days. This work confirms that sling insertion is safe, low risk, and carries minimal complications in the first 30 days, with essentially no difference between gynecologists and urologists during this early time period.

    In a larger context, the American Board of Medical Specialties recognized female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery as a separate subspecialty in 2011, with accreditation of training programs by the American Council for Graduate Medical Education in 2012 and certification now being provided by both the American Board of Urology and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. This represents a standardization in training for pelvic floor specialists, with a foundational goal of ensuring these surgeons, whether from urology or gynecology backgrounds, have the same surgical skill sets and provide uniform quality care.

    Have you read: Data weigh neuromodulation’s impact on QoL at 3 years

    It is the hope that such training now will eliminate disparities of any kind in outcomes of pelvic floor surgical interventions studied in the future.

    More from Urology Times:

    Botulinum formulations show slight outcomes differences

    Brain activity in OAB patients characterized in study

    Words of wisdom: ‘Patients don’t choose when they get sick’


    Subscribe to Urology Times to get monthly news from the leading news source for urologists.

    0 Comments

    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available

    Poll