METHODS: The medical records of 24 patients who underwent repeat MUS surgery at a single tertiary center from January 2004 to February 2014 were reviewed. The types of MUS used for the repeat surgey were transobturator, retropubic and single incision slings. Objective cure was defined as no demonstrable involuntary leakage of urine during increased abdominal pressure in the absence of a detrusor contraction observed during filling cystometry, and subjective cure was defined as a negative response to Urogenital Distress Inventory six (UDI-6) question 3 during follow-up between 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The change in the inclination angle between the urethra and pubic axis was measured with introital ultrasonography and the cotton swab test performed.
RESULTS: The objective and subjective cure rates were 79.2 % and 75 %, respectively. There were no differences in demographics between the patients with failure of surgery and those with successful surgery. Significant independent risk factors for failure of repeat MUS surgery were a change in cotton swab angle at rest and straining of <30° (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.5 - 7.9°), a change in inclination angle of <30° (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.5 - 7.9°), intrinsic sphincter deficiency (OR 3.4, 95 % CI 1.8 - 6.1) and a mean urethral closure pressure of <60 cm H2O (OR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.5 - 4.5). In one patient the bladder was perforated.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeat MUS surgery is safe and has a good short-term success rate, both objectively and subjectively, with independent risk factors for failure related to bladder neck hypomobility and poor urethral function.
RESEARCH DESIGN: The study used a qualitative methodology, comprising 10 in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions. A semistructured topic guide was used to facilitate the interviews, which were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy. Data were analysed thematically using WeftQDA software.
PARTICIPANTS: 20 HCPs who managed falls in older people.
SETTING: This study was conducted at the Primary Care Clinic in the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Malaysia.
RESULTS: Four categories of barriers emerged-these were related to perceived barriers for older people, HCPs' barriers, lack of caregiver support and healthcare system barriers. HCPs perceived that older people normalised falls, felt stigmatised, were fatalistic, as well as in denial regarding falls-related advice. HCPs themselves trivialised falls and lacked the skills to manage falls. Rehabilitation was impeded by premature decisions to admit older people to nursing homes. Lastly, there was a lack of healthcare providers as well as a dearth of fall education and training on fall prevention for HCPs.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified barriers that explain poor fall management in older people with a high risk of falls. The lack of structured fall prevention guidelines and insufficient training in fall management made HCPs unable to advise patients on how to prevent falls. The findings of this study warrant evidence-based structured fall prevention intervention targeted to patients as well as to HCPs.