Safety and Efficacy of Retropubic Mid-urethral Sling Placement in Women Who Void With Valsalva

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes after retropubic sling (RPS) in women with and without Valsalva voiding.MethodsWomen who underwent RPS for stress incontinence from 2010 to 2014 were identified and their baseline characteristics were examined. Valsalva voiding was defined as abdominal straining throughout voiding on preoperative urodynamics. Sub-analysis of those with Valsalva included a subset with detrusor underactivity on urodynamics. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were rates of subjective success, revisions, complications, and voiding dysfunction. Secondary measures were Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) score, post-void residual, and pad use.ResultsSubjects (n = 141) analyzed included 75 Valsalva voiders (VV) and 66 non-Valsalva voiders. At baseline, there were no differences in age, race, comorbidity, post-void residual, pad use, UDI-6, or capacity. Postoperatively, there were no differences in rates of passing initial void trial, need for clean intermittent catheterization, revisions, complications, or voiding dysfunction. No differences in pad use, UDI-6, or IIQ-7 were seen at 6 or 12 months. Within VV, no differences between patients with and without detrusor underactivity were seen for any primary or secondary outcomes (all P > .05).ConclusionIn patients who void with Valsalva, RPS appears to be safe and effective. Between VV and non-Valsalva voiders, there were no differences in rates of subjective success, revisions, or complications, even in patients with Valsalva voiding without appreciable detrusor contraction.