Urethral bulking agents: a retrospective review of primary versus salvage procedure outcomes

Purpose Urethral bulking agents (UBA) have traditionally been offered as salvage procedures for recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We compare the success of UBA in patients that had undergone a previous procedure for SUI (Salvage-UBA) to the SUI surgery naïve (Primary-UBA). We hypothesised a positive effect in both Primary and Salvage-UBA with potentially poorer rates of response in the salvage group. Methods Retrospective case series of patients having their first UBA (2010–2018). Primary outcome was to assess any difference in patient reported success between groups. Patient-reported improvement was assessed on a 4-point scale: ‘cured, improved, no change, worse’ and treatment ‘success’ defined as ‘cured’ or ‘improved’. A multivariate analysis, adjusting for plausible differences between groups, was undertaken in IBM SPSS Statistics (2016). Results 135 Primary-UBA and 38 Salvage-UBA were performed. Complete follow-up was obtained for 114 patients (66%): 86 Primary and 28 Salvage. Median follow-up time: 33 months. In 2012, 47% (8/17) of all UBA were Salvage-UBA, whilst in 2018, the majority were Primary-UBA (92%, 46/50). Success was not significantly different between Salvage-UBA 75% (21/28) versus Primary-UBA 67% (58/86) (Wald χ 2 = 0.687, df = 1, p = 0.407). Top-up rates were similar: 14% ( n = 4/28, Salvage-UBA) versus 15% ( n = 13/86, Primary-UBA) (χ 2 = 0.011, df = 1, p = 0.914). Conclusion The number of women opting for UBA has increased substantially. No significant differences were noted for success with Salvage-UBA compared to Primary-UBA.