The impact of concomitant mid-urethral sling surgery on patients undergoing vaginal prolapse repair

Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study was to assess whether mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement at the time of vaginal prolapse repair compared to vaginal prolapse repair alone is associated with an increase in 30-day postoperative complications. Methods Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Database, Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify cases of vaginal prolapse repair with and without concomitant MUS from 2012 to 2017. Student’s t-test and chi-square test were used to compare differences between the groups. Results A total of 1469 cases of vaginal prolapse repair with sling were compared to 4566 cases without sling. There was no difference between prolapse repair with sling compared to without sling in mean hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.42 versus 1.32 days, p = 0.65), postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) (6.1% versus 5.8%, p = 0.670), perioperative blood transfusion (1.1% versus 1.2%, p = 0.673), readmission (2.7% versus 2.6%, p = 0.884) and postoperative wound infection (0.5% versus 0.7%, p = 0.51). There was a higher rate of reoperation (2.2% versus 1.5%, p = 0.049) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) (0.4% versus 0.1%, p = 0.030) in patients undergoing concomitant MUS compared to those undergoing prolapse repair alone. Conclusions Compared to prolapse repair alone, the addition of a sling did not increase hospital LOS, UTI, perioperative blood transfusions, readmission or postoperative wound infections. However, concomitant sling was found to be associated with a higher risk of reoperation and VTE.