SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5

Analysis of outcome and risk factors for failure aftersingle-incision sling procedure

Hakan Peker
Ali Gursoy
Pages
859–873
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: The overall objective and subjective cure was 87.8% and 90.1%, respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a single-incision sling (SIS) and to detect the risk factors for failure after surgery inwoman with stress urinary incontinence (SUI).Materials and Methods: The medical records of the one hundred thirty-two patients were analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients were asked to answer Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: The overall objective and subjective cure was 87.8% and 90.1%, respectively.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a single-incision sling (SIS) and to detect the risk factors for failure after surgery inwoman with stress urinary incontinence (SUI).Materials and Methods: The medical records of the one hundred thirty-two patients were analyzed. Preoperatively, medical historywas taken and urogynecological examination was made. Patients were asked to answer Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7). Objective cure of SUI was defined as the absence of leakage of urine on the cough test. Subjective cure was based on negative response to UDI-6, question 3. Patients were divided into two groups according to objective cure rate: cured patients (Group A) and failed patients (Group B). Results: The overall objective and subjective cure was 87.8% and 90.1%, respectively. According to the objective cure rate, there were116 patients (87.8%) in Group A and 16 patients (12.2%) in Group B. In terms of subjective cure, Quality of Life (QoL) scores (IIQ-7 and stress subdomain of UDI-6) of Group B were statistically improved after surgery (p=0.001 and p=0.005 respectively). When two groups were compared, Group B had higher prevalence of severe SUI (IIQ scores ≥15 points) and reduced urethral mobility (Q-tip ≤ 30°) (0.8% vs 87.5%, p=0.0001 and 3.4% vs 68.7%, p=0.0001, respectively). The overall recommendation rate for surgery was 90%.Conclusion: Our study showed that SIS procedure has high subjective and objective cure rates. The main risk factors for failure weredetected as reduced urethral mobility and SUI severity expressed with IIQ scores

🔖

Cite This Article

Peker, H., Gursoy, A. (2022). Analysis of outcome and risk factors for failure aftersingle-incision sling procedure. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5, 859–873. https://ajindex.com/articles/445901

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ulmsten U, Petros P. Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1995;29:75-82
  2. Lin L, Huang MC, Su TH, et al. Comparison between tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator tape in treating stress urinary incontinence after vaginal mesh surgery. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2018;57:528- 31
  3. Gambini-Ricapa J, García-Oms J, Barea M, et al. Endopelvic free anchor minisling technique for stress urinary incontinence treatment: 10 years of experience. Int Urogynecol J 2016;27:1265-72
  4. Molden SM, Lucente VR. New minimally invasive slings: TVT Secur. Curr Urol Rep 2008;9:358-61
  5. Mostafa A, Lim CP, Hopper L, et al. Single-incision mini-slings versus standard midurethral slings in surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications. Eur Urol 2014;65:402-27
  6. Lo TS, Chua S, Kao CC, et al. Five-Year Outcome of MiniArc Single-Incision Sling Used in the Treatment of Primary Urodynamic Stress Incontinence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:116-23
  7. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/ International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:4-20
  8. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10-7
  9. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:116-26
  10. Cam C, Sakalli M, Ay P, et al. Validation of the prolapse quality of life questionnaire (P-QOL) in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;135:132-5
  11. Cabrera J, Puyol M, Sousa A, et al. Minimal invasive surgical technique without needles (Contasure Needleless) for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a multicentric trail. Eur Urol Suppl 2008;147:7-3
  12. Palmieri S, Frigerio M, Spelzini F, et al. Risk factors for stress urinary incontinence recurrence after single- incision sling. Neurourol Urodyn 2018;37:1711-6
  13. Martinez Franco E, Amat Tardiu L. Contasure- Needleless® single incision sling compared with transobturator TVT-O® for the treatment of stress urinary in