Babcock versus Scissor Tensioning for Retropubic Mid-Urethral Slings: Comparing Two Intra-Operative Techniques Through 5 Years of Follow-Up.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Urogynecology Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1007/s00192-024-05916-y
Erin A Brennand, Julia Chai, Shannon Cummings, Beili Huang, Taylor Hughes, Allison Edwards, Alison Carter Ramirez
{"title":"Babcock versus Scissor Tensioning for Retropubic Mid-Urethral Slings: Comparing Two Intra-Operative Techniques Through 5 Years of Follow-Up.","authors":"Erin A Brennand, Julia Chai, Shannon Cummings, Beili Huang, Taylor Hughes, Allison Edwards, Alison Carter Ramirez","doi":"10.1007/s00192-024-05916-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The objective was to determine if mid-urethral sling (MUS) tensioning with a Mayo Scissor as a sub-urethral spacer compared with a Babcock clamp holding a loop of tape under the urethra results in differences in patient-reported outcomes and rates of repeat surgery over a 5-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Follow-up 5 years after a randomized clinical trial, utilizing primary data collection linked to administrative health data, was carried out to create a longitudinal cohort. The primary outcome was participant-reported bothersome SUI symptoms, as defined by the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported bothersome overactive bladder (OAB) scores, median scores of three validated urinary symptom questionnaires, and rates of subsequent surgery determined through patient report and administrative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and sixty (81.8%) of the original study participants provided participant-reported data at 5 years. Administrative data linkage was completed for all of the original participants (n = 318). Demographic characteristics remained similar in the two groups at the 5-year follow-up mark. No differences existed in the primary outcome of reported bothersome SUI symptoms (30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock, p = 0.559), proportion of participants with bothersome OAB, the median scores of three validated bladder questionnaires, or in rates and cumulative incidence of recurrent MUS surgery or surgical revision of mesh-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the Scissor and Babcock tensioning techniques provided comparable outcomes at 5 years post-MUS surgery. The information from this study allows surgeons to better decide which technique to adopt in their practice, providing confidence in longer-term cure and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05916-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective was to determine if mid-urethral sling (MUS) tensioning with a Mayo Scissor as a sub-urethral spacer compared with a Babcock clamp holding a loop of tape under the urethra results in differences in patient-reported outcomes and rates of repeat surgery over a 5-year follow-up.

Methods: Follow-up 5 years after a randomized clinical trial, utilizing primary data collection linked to administrative health data, was carried out to create a longitudinal cohort. The primary outcome was participant-reported bothersome SUI symptoms, as defined by the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported bothersome overactive bladder (OAB) scores, median scores of three validated urinary symptom questionnaires, and rates of subsequent surgery determined through patient report and administrative data.

Results: Two hundred and sixty (81.8%) of the original study participants provided participant-reported data at 5 years. Administrative data linkage was completed for all of the original participants (n = 318). Demographic characteristics remained similar in the two groups at the 5-year follow-up mark. No differences existed in the primary outcome of reported bothersome SUI symptoms (30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock, p = 0.559), proportion of participants with bothersome OAB, the median scores of three validated bladder questionnaires, or in rates and cumulative incidence of recurrent MUS surgery or surgical revision of mesh-related complications.

Conclusion: Both the Scissor and Babcock tensioning techniques provided comparable outcomes at 5 years post-MUS surgery. The information from this study allows surgeons to better decide which technique to adopt in their practice, providing confidence in longer-term cure and safety.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后尿道中段吊带的巴布科克式与剪刀式拉紧术:两种术中技术在 5 年随访中的比较。
引言和假设:目的是确定使用梅奥剪刀作为尿道下间隔器进行尿道中段吊带(MUS)张力与使用巴布科克夹在尿道下夹住一圈胶带进行尿道中段吊带(MUS)张力相比,在为期 5 年的随访中患者报告的结果和重复手术率是否存在差异:方法:利用与行政健康数据相关联的原始数据收集,在随机临床试验后 5 年进行随访,以建立纵向队列。主要结果是参与者报告的泌尿生殖器窘迫量表(UDI-6)定义的泌尿生殖器窘迫症状。次要结果包括参与者报告的令人烦恼的膀胱过度活动症(OAB)评分、三种有效尿路症状问卷的中位数评分,以及通过患者报告和管理数据确定的后续手术率:原始研究参与者中有 260 人(81.8%)提供了参与者报告的 5 年数据。所有原始参与者(n = 318)的管理数据链接均已完成。在 5 年的随访中,两组参与者的人口统计学特征保持相似。在报告的主要结果(30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock,p = 0.559)中,两组患者均无明显差异;在报告的主要结果(30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock,p = 0.559)中,两组患者均无明显差异;在报告的主要结果(30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock,p = 0.559)中,两组患者均无明显差异;在报告的主要结果(30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock,p = 0.559)中,两组患者均无明显差异:结论:剪刀式和巴布科克式张力技术在 MUS 术后 5 年的疗效相当。这项研究提供的信息使外科医生能够更好地决定在实践中采用哪种技术,从而对长期治疗和安全性充满信心。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
期刊最新文献
Associations Between Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes and Immunocompromised Status in Patients Undergoing Sacrocolpopexy. Silicone Irregular Hexagon Pessary Versus Polyvinyl Chloride Ring Pessary for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Randomised Controlled Trial. IUGA Scientific Meeting 2024 : 49th Annual Meeting -Singapore, June 19-22, 2024. Letter in Reply Re: Impact of Preoperative Pelvic Floor Muscle Function on the Success of Surgical Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. A Novel Sliding Knot Technique Without a Knot Pusher for Laparoscopic Pelvic Floor Surgery.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1