Safety and Efficacy of Single Incision Sling Versus Midurethral Sling in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- PMID: 36735422
- DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001284
Safety and Efficacy of Single Incision Sling Versus Midurethral Sling in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Importance: This study compares the long-term efficacy and safety of an innovative single-incision sling (SIS) with the inside-out transobturator tape (TOT) sling in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.
Objectives: Women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence were randomized to either SIS or TOT groups and followed up for 4 years. The primary outcome was objective cure defined with a negative cough stress test result. Secondary outcomes involved subjective cure reported via patient's satisfaction scale, surgery complications, postoperative de novo urgency, and patient's life quality.
Study design: This is a randomized noninferiority controlled trial.
Results: A total of 168 women were randomized (84 in both groups). After 4-year follow-up, 130 patients were analyzed (66 in the SIS group and 64 in the TOT group). The objective (86.4% vs 84.4%; risk difference [95% confidence interval], 0.020 [-0.101 to 0.141]; P = 0.807) and subjective cure rates (83.3% vs 81.3%; risk difference [95% confidence interval], 0.020 [-0.111 to 0.151]; P = 0.821) were similar with the SIS and TOT groups. Both procedures were associated with low complication rates. Repeated surgery rates were 7.6% in the SIS group and 6.3% in the TOT groups. The mesh exposure rate was 1.5% for the SIS group and 3.1% for the TOT group. Incidence of de novo urgency did not vary between TOT and SIS patients. Both groups registered significant life quality improvement.
Conclusion: After long-term follow-up, anti-incontinence SIS surgery proved noninferior to the inside-out TOT procedure in terms of objective and subjective cure rates.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02506309.
Copyright © 2023 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Minassian VA, Stewart WF, Wood GC. Urinary incontinence in women: variation in prevalence estimates and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:324–331. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000267220.48987.17. - DOI
-
- Krhut J, Gärtner M, Mokris J, et al. Effect of severity of urinary incontinence on quality of life in women. Neurourol Urodyn 2018;37:1925–1930. doi:10.1002/nau.23568. - DOI
-
- Petros PE, Ulmsten UI. An integral theory of female urinary incontinence. Experimental and clinical considerations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1990;153:7–31. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.1990.tb08027.x. - DOI
-
- Nambiar A, Cody JD, Jeffery ST, et al. Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:CD008709. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008709.pub3. - DOI
-
- Trabuco EC, Carranza D, El Nashar SA, et al. Reoperation for urinary incontinence after retropubic and transobturator sling procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:333–342. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003356. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical