# Evaluation of Outcomes Between the Top-down Versus the Bottom-up Approach for Retropubic Midurethral Sling

## TL;DR

This study compares two surgical approaches for treating urinary incontinence and finds that one method has lower mesh erosion rates without increasing complications.

## Contribution

The study provides updated clinical outcomes comparing top-down and bottom-up approaches for retropubic MUS placement.

## Key findings

- Top-down approach was associated with lower rates of mesh erosion.
- Both approaches had similar overall complication rates.
- Top-down approach was less likely to be used with concurrent anterior or posterior repairs.

## Abstract

Retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) placement is the gold standard for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in the USA. The procedure can be approached from either a top-down or a bottom-up direction, but there is a paucity of contemporary data regarding outcomes between these approaches. The aim of this study was to provide updated clinical outcomes data.

This was a retrospective cohort study of women undergoing the retropubic MUS procedure alone or at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair between 2010 and 2020 at a single academic medical center. The electronic medical record was used to extract demographic data, operative approach, and perioperative complications. The primary outcome was a composite incidence of any perioperative complication.

Of the 309 patients analyzed, 140 (45.3%) underwent top-down and 169 (54.7%) underwent bottom-up retropubic MUS placement. Patients undergoing top-down MUS placement were more likely to be older (mean age 58 vs 54, p=0.02), have a history of diabetes mellitus (20% vs 8.9%, p=0.004), and have had a prior hysterectomy (27% vs 16%, p=0.02). They were less likely to have a concurrent anterior (p<0.001) or posterior repair (p<0.001). Patients undergoing the top-down procedure were less likely to experience sling exposure (p=0.02); complications in the two groups were otherwise similar.

The top-down approach to retropubic MUS placement was associated with lower rates of mesh erosion in this population of patients. Neither approach is associated with an increased overall risk of complications or de novo overactive bladder symptoms.