Comparative study of two techniques of laparoscopic burch colposuspension using sutures versus mesh in women with genuine stress urinary incontinence.

IF 1.3 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Arab Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-03-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20905998.2024.2321739
Basheer N Elmohamady, Hammouda W Sherif, Shabieb A Mohammed, Ahmed H Mohamed, Abdallah F Abdelazim
{"title":"Comparative study of two techniques of laparoscopic burch colposuspension using sutures versus mesh in women with genuine stress urinary incontinence.","authors":"Basheer N Elmohamady, Hammouda W Sherif, Shabieb A Mohammed, Ahmed H Mohamed, Abdallah F Abdelazim","doi":"10.1080/20905998.2024.2321739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic colposuspension using sutures (LCS) versus mesh and staples (LCM) in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized study was conducted over a total of 80 women with genuine stress urinary incontinence between January 2020 and April 2022. Women were randomly assigned to the LCS group (<i>n</i> = 40) or the LCM group (<i>n</i> = 40). They underwent objective evaluations, including a standardized stress test, a 24-hour pad test, and a frequency-volume chart. Subjective assessments were made using a quality-of-life questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The LCS group exhibited superior outcomes in PAD test improvement (from 147 [31-304] to 3 [0-300] at 1 year, <i>p</i> < 0.001), stress test scores (from 82 [11-153] to 1 [0-124] at 1 year, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and mean micturated volume (increase from 294 ± 65 to 321 ± 57 at 1 year, <i>p</i> = 0.037) compared to the LCM group. Urodynamic findings revealed a higher Maximum Urethral Closure Pressure in the LCS group (33.1 ± 6.9) versus the LCM group (28.3 ± 6.4, <i>p</i> = 0.002). Quality of life improvements were significantly better in the LCS group across various domains. However, the LCM group benefitted from shorter surgery duration, hospital stays, and bladder drainage duration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LCS demonstrates significant advantages over LCM in treating female stress urinary incontinence, particularly in cure rates and quality of life improvements. Despite the operational benefits of LCM in terms of reduced surgery and recovery times, LCS offers superior therapeutic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10929671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20905998.2024.2321739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic colposuspension using sutures (LCS) versus mesh and staples (LCM) in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.

Methods: This randomized study was conducted over a total of 80 women with genuine stress urinary incontinence between January 2020 and April 2022. Women were randomly assigned to the LCS group (n = 40) or the LCM group (n = 40). They underwent objective evaluations, including a standardized stress test, a 24-hour pad test, and a frequency-volume chart. Subjective assessments were made using a quality-of-life questionnaire.

Results: The LCS group exhibited superior outcomes in PAD test improvement (from 147 [31-304] to 3 [0-300] at 1 year, p < 0.001), stress test scores (from 82 [11-153] to 1 [0-124] at 1 year, p < 0.001), and mean micturated volume (increase from 294 ± 65 to 321 ± 57 at 1 year, p = 0.037) compared to the LCM group. Urodynamic findings revealed a higher Maximum Urethral Closure Pressure in the LCS group (33.1 ± 6.9) versus the LCM group (28.3 ± 6.4, p = 0.002). Quality of life improvements were significantly better in the LCS group across various domains. However, the LCM group benefitted from shorter surgery duration, hospital stays, and bladder drainage duration.

Conclusion: LCS demonstrates significant advantages over LCM in treating female stress urinary incontinence, particularly in cure rates and quality of life improvements. Despite the operational benefits of LCM in terms of reduced surgery and recovery times, LCS offers superior therapeutic outcomes.

对患有真正压力性尿失禁的妇女使用缝合线和网片进行腹腔镜鲍氏结肠悬吊术两种技术的比较研究。
背景:比较使用缝合线(LCS)和网片及订书钉(LCM)的腹腔镜阴道缝合术治疗女性压力性尿失禁的有效性和安全性:比较使用缝合线(LCS)与网片和订书钉(LCM)的腹腔镜阴道悬吊术治疗女性压力性尿失禁的有效性和安全性:这项随机研究在 2020 年 1 月至 2022 年 4 月期间对 80 名患有真正压力性尿失禁的女性进行了研究。妇女被随机分配到 LCS 组(40 人)或 LCM 组(40 人)。她们接受了客观评估,包括标准化压力测试、24 小时尿垫测试和频率-容量图。主观评估采用生活质量问卷:结果:与 LCM 组相比,LCS 组在 PAD 测试改善方面取得了更好的结果(1 年后从 147 [31-304] 降至 3 [0-300],p p = 0.037)。尿动力学结果显示,LCS 组的最大尿道闭合压(33.1 ± 6.9)高于 LCM 组(28.3 ± 6.4,P = 0.002)。在各个领域,LCS 组的生活质量改善明显更好。然而,LCM 组的手术时间、住院时间和膀胱引流时间更短:结论:LCS 在治疗女性压力性尿失禁方面比 LCM 有明显优势,尤其是在治愈率和生活质量改善方面。尽管 LCM 在缩短手术时间和恢复时间方面具有操作优势,但 LCS 的治疗效果更胜一筹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arab Journal of Urology
Arab Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信