Evaluation of the Effect of Hospital and Physician Factors on Likelihood of Revision After Mid-Urethral Sling Placement

dc.contributor.advisorQuan, Hude
dc.contributor.authorBrennand, Erin Alexandra
dc.contributor.committeememberMetcalfe, Amy
dc.contributor.committeememberPeng, Mingkai
dc.contributor.committeememberMcCaughey, Deirdre
dc.date2020-06
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-22T21:19:11Z
dc.date.available2020-01-22T21:19:11Z
dc.date.issued2020-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: To estimate rates of revision surgery after insertion of mesh midurethral slings (MUS) and explore if healthcare attributes such as physician specialty, annual operative volume, or hospital type are risk factors for this outcome. Methods: This study used a population-based retrospective cohort of women who underwent MUS insertion over a 13-year interval (2004–2017) in Alberta, Canada. The main outcome was subsequent surgery for revision of MUS, defined by a composite of surgical procedures. Exposures included annual number of MUS procedures performed by the surgeon, facility type, surgeon specialty, patient age, and concomitant prolapse repair. Mixed-effects logistic regression utilizing linear spines was used to test the a priori hypothesis that annual surgical volume would be inversely related in a non-linear fashion to risk of revision. Results: In a cohort of 19,511 women, cumulative rates of revision surgery were 3.36% (95% CI 3.06–3.68) at 5 years and 4.57% (95% CI 4.00–5.21) at 10 years. The first year after MUS insertion was the most vulnerable window, with 0.39% (95% CI 0.31–0.49) undergoing revision within 30 days and 2.05% (95% CI 1.85–2.26) within a year. Concomitant prolapse repairs (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.04–1.48) and surgeon’s annual volume were associated with revision. After 50 cases per year, odds of revision declined with each additional case (OR = 0.991 per case, 95% CI 0.983–0.999; OR = 0.91 per 10 cases, 95% CI 0.84–0.98) and plateaued at 110 cases per year. Surgeon specialty, hospital type, and patient age were not associated with outcome. Conclusions and relevance: Within 10 years, nearly 1 in 20 women underwent revision surgery after MUS insertion. Physician annual surgical volume appears to be a risk factor, with a decline in risk of revision surgery occurring at an annual threshold of >50 cases. Given that annual case volume is a potentially modifiable risk factor, development of policies regarding minimum caseload parameters for surgeons performing MUS procedures may hold potential to improve the quality of MUS surgery.en_US
dc.identifier.citationBrennand, E. A. (2020). Evaluation of the Effect of Hospital and Physician Factors on Likelihood of Revision After Mid-Urethral Sling Placement (Master's thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada). Retrieved from https://prism.ucalgary.ca.en_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/37493
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/111543
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisher.facultyCumming School of Medicineen_US
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Calgaryen
dc.rightsUniversity of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.en_US
dc.subject.classificationEducation--Healthen_US
dc.subject.classificationBiophysics--Medicalen_US
dc.subject.classificationEpidemiologyen_US
dc.subject.classificationMedicine and Surgeryen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of the Effect of Hospital and Physician Factors on Likelihood of Revision After Mid-Urethral Sling Placementen_US
dc.typemaster thesisen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineMedicine – Community Health Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Calgaryen_US
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science (MSc)en_US
ucalgary.item.requestcopyfalseen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ucalgary_2020_brennand_erin.pdf
Size:
806.8 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.62 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: