Efficacy and Safety of Incontinence Surgery According to the Surgeon’s Specialty and Performance of a Preoperative Urodynamic Study.
- Author:
Jin Bong CHOI
1
;
Kyung Do HAN
;
U Syn HA
;
Sung Hoo HONG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Stress urinary incontinence; Surgery; Outcomes; Urodynamics
- MeSH: Dataset; Female; Humans; Korea; National Health Programs; Reoperation; Urinary Incontinence; Urinary Retention; Urodynamics*
- From:International Neurourology Journal 2018;22(4):305-312
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy and to estimate the complication rate of incontinence surgery according to the surgeon's specialty and whether a preoperative urodynamic study (UDS) was performed, using a nationally representative dataset. METHODS: We enrolled 356,155 women over 20 years old who had undergone surgery for stress urinary incontinence between 2006 and 2015. Patients were followed for up to 3 years to analyze the reoperation and complication rates. Data were obtained from the National Health Claims Database of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) of Korea. Multiple Cox regression analysis was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of incontinence surgery according to the surgeon’s specialty and whether a preoperative UDS was performed. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for reoperation was significantly higher for procedures performed by nonurologists than for procedures performed by urologists (HR, 1.174; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.103–1.249). Acute urinary retention, postoperative infections, procedure-associated pain, and other complications were also more common in procedures performed by nonurologists than in those performed by urologists. When stratified by whether a preoperative UDS was performed, the HR for reoperation according to the surgeon’s specialty varied by performance of a preoperative UDS. While the reoperation rate was significantly higher in procedures performed by non-urologists when a preoperative UDS was performed (HR, 1.208; 95% CI, 1.122–1.3), there was no significant difference in the HRs for reoperation according to specialty when a preoperative UDS was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study showed that the postoperative outcomes of incontinence surgery were dependent upon the surgeon’s specialty and that the reoperation rate according to the surgeon’s specialty varied based on whether a preoperative UDS was performed.
