Transobturator Versus Minisling for Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001415
Rodrigo Bartilloti Barachisio Lisboa, Marcelo de Arruda Faber, Glaucia Miranda Varella Pereira, Edilson Benedito de Castro, Ana Carolina Marchesini Camargo, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito
{"title":"Transobturator Versus Minisling for Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Rodrigo Bartilloti Barachisio Lisboa, Marcelo de Arruda Faber, Glaucia Miranda Varella Pereira, Edilson Benedito de Castro, Ana Carolina Marchesini Camargo, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The comparison between single-incision slings (SISs) and midurethral slings has been documented in the literature, but results vary according to the SIS device.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study is to assess whether SIS (Solyx) is noninferior to transobturator (TOT) (Obtryx) sling for treating women with confirmed stress-predominant urinary incontinence.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A prospective, parallel, nonblinded, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized controlled study with 114 patients were randomized and followed 6 and 12 months after surgery. Interventions were midurethral TOT sling (Obtryx-halo; n = 58) or SIS (Solyx; n = 56). The primary outcome was improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Secondary outcomes were the Kings Health Questionnaire (KHQ) instruments after treatment, subjective improvement, and surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups were homogeneous ( P = NS) regarding sociodemographic and clinical variables. There was improvement in the PGI-I after 6 ( P = 0.001) and 12 months ( P = 0.001) of treatment for women who underwent TOT sling. After 6 months, KHQ scores improved in the TOT group for the following domains: role limitations ( P = 0.026) and physical limitations ( P = 0.006). After 12 months, the TOT group presented better KHQ scores that were statistically significant from the SIS group in incontinence impact ( P = 0.012), physical limitations ( P = 0.001), and severity measures ( P = 0.017). Moreover, the TOT group presented higher subjective improvement after 6 months ( P = 0.006) than the SIS group. Mesh erosion was higher in the SIS group ( P = 0.006). Reoperations were not statistically different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were higher scores in the PGI-I score and higher subjective improvement for the TOT sling after 6 and 12 months of treatment when compared with the SIS group.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: The comparison between single-incision slings (SISs) and midurethral slings has been documented in the literature, but results vary according to the SIS device.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess whether SIS (Solyx) is noninferior to transobturator (TOT) (Obtryx) sling for treating women with confirmed stress-predominant urinary incontinence.

Study design: A prospective, parallel, nonblinded, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized controlled study with 114 patients were randomized and followed 6 and 12 months after surgery. Interventions were midurethral TOT sling (Obtryx-halo; n = 58) or SIS (Solyx; n = 56). The primary outcome was improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Secondary outcomes were the Kings Health Questionnaire (KHQ) instruments after treatment, subjective improvement, and surgical outcomes.

Results: Both groups were homogeneous ( P = NS) regarding sociodemographic and clinical variables. There was improvement in the PGI-I after 6 ( P = 0.001) and 12 months ( P = 0.001) of treatment for women who underwent TOT sling. After 6 months, KHQ scores improved in the TOT group for the following domains: role limitations ( P = 0.026) and physical limitations ( P = 0.006). After 12 months, the TOT group presented better KHQ scores that were statistically significant from the SIS group in incontinence impact ( P = 0.012), physical limitations ( P = 0.001), and severity measures ( P = 0.017). Moreover, the TOT group presented higher subjective improvement after 6 months ( P = 0.006) than the SIS group. Mesh erosion was higher in the SIS group ( P = 0.006). Reoperations were not statistically different between groups.

Conclusion: There were higher scores in the PGI-I score and higher subjective improvement for the TOT sling after 6 and 12 months of treatment when compared with the SIS group.

经闭孔与小吊带治疗尿失禁:一项随机对照试验。
重要性:文献中记录了单切口吊带(SIS)和中尿道吊带之间的比较,但结果因SIS装置而异。目的:本研究的目的是评估SIS(Solyx)吊带在治疗已证实的压力性尿失禁方面是否不劣于经bturator(TOT)(Obtryx)吊带。研究设计:一项前瞻性、平行、非盲、多中心、非劣效性、随机对照研究,对114名患者进行随机分组,并在术后6个月和12个月进行随访。介入治疗为中尿道TOT吊带(Obtryx halo;n=58)或SIS(Solyx;n=56)。主要结果是患者整体改善印象(PGI-I)的改善。次要结果是治疗后的Kings健康问卷(KHQ)、主观改善和手术结果。结果:两组在社会人口统计学和临床变量方面是同质的(P=NS)。接受TOT吊带的女性在治疗6个月(P=0.001)和12个月(P=0.001)后PGI-I有所改善。6个月后,TOT组在以下领域的KHQ评分有所改善:角色限制(P=0.026)和身体限制(P=0.006,TOT组在6个月后表现出比SIS组更高的主观改善(P=0.006)。SIS组的网状物侵蚀率较高(P=0.006)。两组之间再次手术没有统计学差异。结论:与SIS组相比,TOT吊带在治疗6个月和12个月后的PGI-I评分更高,主观改善程度更高。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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