Single-incision slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: efficacy and adverse effects at 10-year follow-up.
Complications
Functional outcomes
Long-term follow-up
Quality of life
Single-incision sling
Stress urinary incontinence
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
30
06
2020
accepted:
13
08
2020
pubmed:
10
9
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
9
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Single-incision slings are not considered a first-choice surgical treatment owing to a lack of data about long-term outcomes. We aimed to assess the long-term results of urinary incontinence treatment after single-incision sling implantation at 10 years' follow-up and to investigate possible deterioration over time. This retrospective study analyzed women with subjective and urodynamically proven stress urinary incontinence who underwent single-incision sling procedure. The objective cure rate was assessed with a 300-ml stress test. The subjective cure rate was determined by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) questionnaire scores and self-answered patient-satisfaction scales were collected to assess symptom severity. Findings were compared with short-term outcomes in the same patients, available through our previous database, in order to detect possible outcome deterioration over time. The records of 60 patients were analyzed. Nine patients (15%) were lost to follow-up. A total of 51 patients completed the evaluation, with a mean follow-up of 10.3 ± 0.7 years. Objective and subjective cure resulted 86.3% and 88.2% respectively. Mean PGI-I scores and ICIQ-SF were 1.5 ± 1.0 and 3.2 ± 4.8 respectively. Patients' satisfaction scored 8.6 ± 2.6 out of 10. No long-term complications occurred. Comparison of short-term (2.6 ± 1.4 years after surgery) and long-term follow-up did not show a significant deterioration of outcome over time. Single-incision slings were shown to be a procedure with a great efficacy and safety profile at very long-term follow-up. Cure rates and functional outcomes did not show any deterioration over time compared with short-term results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32902762
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04499-8
pii: 10.1007/s00192-020-04499-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
187-191Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Bo K, Frawley HC, Haylen BT, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:221–44.
doi: 10.1002/nau.23107
Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Ogah J. Midurethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(7):CD006375. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub3 .
Aydın S, Arıoğlu Aydın Ç. Effect of concomitant single incision vaginal surgery on mid urethral sling success. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(8):995–9.
doi: 10.1002/nau.22847
Rovner ES, Wein AJ. Treatment options for stress urinary incontinence. Rev Urol. 2004;6(Suppl 3):S29–47.
pubmed: 16985862
pmcid: 1472859
Cox A, Herschorn S, Lee L. Surgical management of female SUI: is there a gold standard? [published correction appears in Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(4):188]. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(2):78–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2012.243 .
doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2012.243
pubmed: 23318365
Ulmsten U, Petros P. Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995;29(1):75–82.
doi: 10.3109/00365599509180543
Geller EJ, Wu JM. Changing trends in surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25(5):404–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283648cdd .
doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283648cdd
pubmed: 23872710
Barber MD, Kleeman S, Karram MM, et al. Transobturator tape compared with tension-free vaginal tape for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):611–21.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318162f22e
Milani R, Manodoro S, Cola A, Palmieri S, Frigerio M. Management of unrecognized bladder perforation following suburethral tape procedure. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;142(1):118–9.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12493
Delorme E. [Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women]. Prog Urol. 2001;11(6):1306–13.
pubmed: 11859672
Bianchi-Ferraro AM, Jarmy-DiBella ZI, De Aquino Castro R, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing TVT-O and TVT-S for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: 2-year results. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1343–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2352-7
Martan A, Masata J, Svabík K. [TVT SECUR system—tension-free support of the urethra in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence—technique and initial experience]. Ceska Gynekol. 2007;72(1):42–9.
pubmed: 17357349
Mostafa A, Lim CP, Hopper L, Madhuvrata P, Abdel-Fattah M. 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(2):402–27.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.032
Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Regini C, Palmieri S, Manodoro S, Milani R. Learning curve for the single-incision suburethral sling procedure for female stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;139(3):363–7.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12317
Palmieri S, Frigerio M, Spelzini F, Manodoro S, Milani R. Risk factors for stress urinary incontinence recurrence after single-incision sling. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(5):1711–6.
doi: 10.1002/nau.23487
Frigerio M, Regini C, Manodoro S, Spelzini F, Milani R. Mini-sling efficacy in obese versus non-obese patients for treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69(6):533–7.
pubmed: 28598139
Spelzini F, Cesana MC, Verri D, Polizzi S, Frigerio M, Milani R. Three-dimensional ultrasound assessment and middle term efficacy of a single-incision sling. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(8):1391–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-2031-5
Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Finazzi Agrò E, Soligo M, Li Marzi V, Digesu A, Serati M. Long-term outcomes of TOT and TVT procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1119–30.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3275-x
Manodoro S, Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Nicoli E, Verri D, Milani R. Is occult stress urinary incontinence a reliable predictive marker? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(4):280–2.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000272
Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(3):261–74.
doi: 10.1002/nau.10066
Tubaro A, Zattoni F, Prezioso D, et al. Italian validation of the international consultation on incontinence questionnaires. BJU Int. 2006;97(1):101–8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05885.x
Spelzini F, Manodoro S, Cola A, Palmieri S, Roselli F, Frigerio M. Single-incision sling for stress urinary incontinence: a video tutorial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;237:216–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.04.037
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5
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. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9
Lo TS, Chua S, Tan YL, Patrimonio MC, Pue LB. Ultrasonography and clinical outcomes following anti-incontinence procedures (Monarc vs MiniArc): a 3-year post-operative review. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0207375. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207375 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207375
pubmed: 30513097
pmcid: 6279016
Lo TS, Chua S, Kao CC, Uy-Patrimonio MC, Ibrahim R, Tan YL. Five-year outcome of MiniArc single-incision sling used in the treatment of primary urodynamic stress incontinence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(1):116–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.647 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.647
pubmed: 28826955
Sun Z, Wang X, Lang J, et al. Comparison of outcomes between single-incision sling and transobturator sling for treating stress urinary incontinence: a 10-year prospective study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(7):1852–8.
doi: 10.1002/nau.24078
Lucas MG, Bedretdinova D, Bosch JLHR, et al. European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. Guidelines on urinary incontinence. 2015. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Urinary-Incontinence-2015.pdf
Cornu JN, Lizée D, Sèbe P, et al. TVT SECUR single-incision sling after 5 years of follow-up: the promises made and the promises broken. Eur Urol. 2012;62(4):737–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.054
Mira Gon L, Zanettini Riccetto CL, Citatini de Campos CC, Iamashita Voris BR, Reis LO, Rodrigues Palma PC. Mini-sling Ophira at 8 years follow-up: does it sustain results? Urol Int. 2019;102(3):326–30.
doi: 10.1159/000496560
Update on the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: written statement—HCWS841. Published July 2018.
Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Aluko P, Ogah JA. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 7(7):CD006375.
pubmed: 28756647
Seklehner S, Laudano MA, Xie D, Chughtai B, Lee RK. A metaanalysis of the performance of retropubic mid urethral slings versus transobturator mid urethral slings. J Urol. 2015;193:909–15.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.104
ACQSHC. Care pathway for the management of Stress Urinary Incontinence 2018.
Haylen BT, Lee JKS, Sivagnanam V, Cross A. What if there were no tapes? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(6):2026–34.
doi: 10.1002/nau.23741