JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 85

Abstracts
surgery elsewhere. For the patients who had excision surgery the average time between insertion and removal was
16 months (range 0-72).The number of tape removal procedures performed doubled in 2017 compared to that of
2016 and 2015.
Conclusion: Mid urethral tape procedures in our series
had an excision rate of 3.1%. The number of tape removal
procedures performed per year at our trust appears to be
increasing. Nearly half of the patients, who had tapes
removed at our trust, had had their initial tape insertion
surgery in another unit. Therefore, the true incidence of
tape removal remains uncertain.We look forward to longterm data from national audit projects and welcome the
involvement of other allied specialties in the formation of
more powerful data.
P10-4 Management of urological
complications of mid urethral tape within
a centralised centre: analysis of surgical
management 2016-2018
Dooher M1, Saidan D2, Guerrero K2, Granitsiotis P1
General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2Queen
Elizabeth Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom

1Western

Introduction: The Independent Review of transvaginal
mesh implants was set up by the Scottish government in
2015 to assess the evidence relating to surgery using synthetic mesh implants for the treatment of stress urinary
incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The
final review in 2017 recommended the management Mid
Urethral Sling (MUS) complications be centralised as a result.
Methods: A review and analysis logbooks, theatre log and
multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion identified patients
who underwent surgical management of International
Continence Society (ICS)/International Urogynaecological
Association (IUGA) category 4 complications (urinary tract).
Results: From January 2016 to January 2018, 20 patients
with category 4 complications underwent surgical management. All patients presented within the T4 category
(over 12 months) ranging from 2000 to 2012 with 90%
(18/20) being inserted by gynaecologists compared with
10% (2/20) of urologists. 70% (14/20) of complications
were urethral perforations with 86% (12/14) being treated
with fistula repair and the remaining cases with LASER
(with 3 of the surgical cases haven previously undergone a
total of 10 LASER procedures previously). The remaining
30% (6/20) were bladder perforations with 66.6% (4/6)
being surgically repaired and 33.3% (2/6) undergoing
LASER. Post-operatively, 15% (3/20) patients were completely dry and did not require any further intervention,
60% of patients (12/20) had mild - moderate OAB incontinence treated by physiotherapy, 10% (2/20) have undergo
further anti-incontinence surgery and 15% (3/20) are
awaiting review.

85
Conclusion: MUS insertion complications should be
classified appropriately and managed in a dedicated, centralised reconstruction unit to ensure long-term satisfactory outcomes.
P10-5 Outcomes of bladder neck closure for
intractable stress urinary incontinence
Mosli-lynch C1, Pakzad M1, Hamid R1, Ockrim J1,
Greenwell T1
1University College London Hospitals, United Kingdom

Introduction: Bladder Neck Closure (BNC) is an infrequently performed for intractable urinary incontinence as
a 'last resort', in patients whom other options have been
exhausted. Two main approaches -Transabdominal and
Transvaginal are described. We have assessed the outcomes of these different techniques.
Methods: We retrospectively examined 38 patients who
had BNC performed between 1995 and 2016 in a single
unit. Examined were demographics, underlying diagnosis,
technique and whether concurrent bladder augmentation
or urinary diversion was performed. Outcomes included
success of procedure, continence at one year and need for
revision; analysed using Fisher's Exact Test.
Results: Results are shown on table 1.The Transabdominal
route was the most frequently employed (73%, n=19),
often concurrent to Augmentation Cystoplasty and either
Mitrofanoff (95%) or SPC (5%). Success rate was 72% at
one year. Transvaginal approach was used in 27% (n=7)
with a Martius fat pad employed in 83%. The success rate
for transvaginal approach was 57% (n=4). There was no
significant difference demonstrated between the two
routes with regards to success of closure, continence at
one year or the need for revision.
Conclusion: Bladder neck closure results in a 76% success rate. There was no statistical difference in outcome
between the two approaches, and the best technique
remains dependent on the indications for BNC and the
ability to access the bladder neck from above or below
the pelvis.

P10-5: Table 1

Transabdominal
Transvaginal
P=0.29

Transabdominal
Transvaginal
P=0.59

Successful

Not successful

15
4

3
3

Revised

Not revised

3
2

15
5



Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018

Contents
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - BB1
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - BB2
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - Cover1
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - Cover2
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - Contents
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 2
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 3
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 4
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 5
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 6
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 7
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 8
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 9
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 10
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 11
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 12
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 13
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 14
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 15
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 16
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 17
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 18
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 19
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 20
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 21
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 22
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 23
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 24
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 25
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 26
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 27
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 28
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 29
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 30
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 31
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 32
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 33
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 34
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 35
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 36
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 37
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 38
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 39
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 40
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 41
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 42
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 43
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 44
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 45
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 46
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 47
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 48
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 49
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 50
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 51
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 52
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 53
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 54
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 55
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 56
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 57
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 58
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 59
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 60
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 61
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 62
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 63
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 64
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 65
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 66
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 67
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 68
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 69
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 70
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 71
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 72
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 73
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 74
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 75
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 76
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 77
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 78
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 79
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 80
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 81
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 82
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 83
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 84
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 85
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 86
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 87
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 88
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 89
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 90
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 91
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 92
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 93
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 94
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 95
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 96
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 97
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 98
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 99
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 100
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - Cover3
JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - Cover4
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com