Long-Term Results after Suprapubic ARC Procedure for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Retrospective Data Analysis.
Long-term outcome
Mid-urethral sling
Stress urinary incontinence
Suprapubic arc
Journal
Urologia internationalis
ISSN: 1423-0399
Titre abrégé: Urol Int
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0417373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
05
01
2021
accepted:
11
04
2021
pubmed:
29
6
2021
medline:
19
1
2022
entrez:
28
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of the suprapubic arc (SPARC) procedure for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). 139 female patients treated by SPARC were included in this retrospective analysis, whereby 126 patients were available for follow-up after 1 year, 70 after 6 years, and 41 after 9 years. The cough test, pad test, uroflowmetry, and post-void residual volume measurements were performed. Severity of bother (visual analogous scale [VAS] 0-10), continence, and the satisfaction rate were assessed. Objective cure was defined as a negative cough test and pad weight ≤1 g, subjective cure as no urine loss during daily activities and no usage of pads. The VAS, pad weight, number of pads per day, and maximal flow rate were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. Objective cure rates at 1, 6, and 9 years were 78.6, 71.4, and 70.7% and subjective cure rates were 72.2, 55.7, and 65.8%, respectively. The VAS, pad weight, number of pads, and maximal flow rate decreased significantly. Study limitations include a relatively small sample size and the retrospective fashion of the analysis. In the long-term context, SPARC showed to represent an efficient and safe procedure for treatment of female SUI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34182548
pii: 000516941
doi: 10.1159/000516941
pmc: PMC8491490
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
777-785Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Eur Urol. 2010 May;57(5):897-901
pubmed: 19819616
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004 Mar-Apr;15(2):129-31; discussion 131
pubmed: 15014941
Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Aug;28(8):1119-1130
pubmed: 28213797
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12 Suppl 2:S5-8
pubmed: 11450979
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):525-9
pubmed: 23856039
Urologe A. 2020 Jan;59(1):65-71
pubmed: 31741004
Eur Urol. 2006 Aug;50(2):333-8
pubmed: 16713066
Ir J Med Sci. 2008 Mar;177(1):39-42
pubmed: 18172575
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):998-1000
pubmed: 15311022
Int J Urol. 2006 Nov;13(11):1410-4
pubmed: 17083393
Korean J Urol. 2010 Apr;51(4):223-32
pubmed: 20428423
Eur Urol. 2006 Oct;50(4):826-30; discussion 830-1
pubmed: 16687203
Neurourol Urodyn. 2020 Jun;39(5):1523-1528
pubmed: 32407576
BJU Int. 2011 Nov;108 Suppl 2:24-8
pubmed: 22085122
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996;7(2):81-5; discussion 85-6
pubmed: 8798092
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998 Jan;77(1):87-94
pubmed: 9492726
Eur Urol. 2017 Oct;72(4):567-591
pubmed: 28479203
Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167-78
pubmed: 11857671
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 01;(7):CD006375
pubmed: 26130017
Eur Urol. 2003 Aug;44(2):254-8; discussion 258-9
pubmed: 12875946
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Apr;31(4):727-735
pubmed: 31956938
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Jun;189:48-54
pubmed: 25855326