Transobturator hybrid tape versus synthetic tape in treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: A prospective randomized clinical study.

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urologia Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1177/03915603241293838
Islam Mansy, Diab Elsayed, Ahmed Saafan, Safwat E Abouhashem, Ahmed M Eliwa, Ibrahem Ismael Samaha, Kareem M Taha
{"title":"Transobturator hybrid tape versus synthetic tape in treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: A prospective randomized clinical study.","authors":"Islam Mansy, Diab Elsayed, Ahmed Saafan, Safwat E Abouhashem, Ahmed M Eliwa, Ibrahem Ismael Samaha, Kareem M Taha","doi":"10.1177/03915603241293838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical and operative outcomes of transobturator hybrid tape versus synthetic tapes during mid-urethral sling in treating female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized study included 63 women with SUI. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group I included 32 patients who underwent midurethral sling procedure using hybrid tape; and Group II included 31 patients that had synthetic sling, using transobturator tape approach (TOT) in both groups. Two patients in group I lost to follow up and one patient in group II lost to follow up. The primary endpoint was the safety of sling erosion and major complications. The 2ry endpoint was the efficacy that was assessed objectively by the Cough stress test and subjectively by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and this was assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months. The following variables were compared: operative time, post-operative pain scores, duration of indwelling urethral catheter, hospital stay, and quality of life (QoL) assessment (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form [ICIQ-UI-SF]) assessing the continence status before and after discharge from hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients among the two groups were normally distributed with no statistical significant difference in patient's demographic data and comorbidities. The hybrid tape procedure had a longer mean (SD) operative time of 45.3 ± 3.6 min, which was longer than that of synthetic tape procedure, at a mean (SD) of 29.5 ± (3.5) min. This increase was statistically significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The mean time to return to normal activity was significantly shorter in Group II patients compared to those in Group I. Overall cure rate (defined as no more episodes of SUI or pad use) was statistically insignificant in both groups being 86.7% and 83.3% respectively. No bladder, vascular, nervous or intestinal injuries were encountered in either group. Pain was significantly higher in hybrid tape (Group I). Post operative urgency, and urge incontinence rates were not significantly different between in both groups. Two cases in group 1 and one case in the other group, and these cases were managed by medical treatment. Vaginal sling erosion was encountered in one case in group II which was managed by sling removal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hybrid tape may be considered as a treatment option during TOT for female SUI with comparable efficacy and safety to synthetic tape. Long term follow up should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":23574,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Journal","volume":" ","pages":"3915603241293838"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603241293838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical and operative outcomes of transobturator hybrid tape versus synthetic tapes during mid-urethral sling in treating female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Patients and methods: This prospective randomized study included 63 women with SUI. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group I included 32 patients who underwent midurethral sling procedure using hybrid tape; and Group II included 31 patients that had synthetic sling, using transobturator tape approach (TOT) in both groups. Two patients in group I lost to follow up and one patient in group II lost to follow up. The primary endpoint was the safety of sling erosion and major complications. The 2ry endpoint was the efficacy that was assessed objectively by the Cough stress test and subjectively by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) and this was assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months. The following variables were compared: operative time, post-operative pain scores, duration of indwelling urethral catheter, hospital stay, and quality of life (QoL) assessment (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form [ICIQ-UI-SF]) assessing the continence status before and after discharge from hospital.

Results: Patients among the two groups were normally distributed with no statistical significant difference in patient's demographic data and comorbidities. The hybrid tape procedure had a longer mean (SD) operative time of 45.3 ± 3.6 min, which was longer than that of synthetic tape procedure, at a mean (SD) of 29.5 ± (3.5) min. This increase was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The mean time to return to normal activity was significantly shorter in Group II patients compared to those in Group I. Overall cure rate (defined as no more episodes of SUI or pad use) was statistically insignificant in both groups being 86.7% and 83.3% respectively. No bladder, vascular, nervous or intestinal injuries were encountered in either group. Pain was significantly higher in hybrid tape (Group I). Post operative urgency, and urge incontinence rates were not significantly different between in both groups. Two cases in group 1 and one case in the other group, and these cases were managed by medical treatment. Vaginal sling erosion was encountered in one case in group II which was managed by sling removal.

Conclusion: Hybrid tape may be considered as a treatment option during TOT for female SUI with comparable efficacy and safety to synthetic tape. Long term follow up should be considered.

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
经尿道杂交胶带与合成胶带在治疗女性压力性尿失禁中的对比:前瞻性随机临床研究。
目的在治疗女性压力性尿失禁(SUI)的尿道中段吊带术中,比较经尿道杂交带与合成带的临床和手术效果:这项前瞻性随机研究纳入了 63 名 SUI 女性患者。患者分为两组:第一组包括32名患者,她们接受了使用混合胶带的尿道中段吊带术;第二组包括31名患者,她们接受了合成吊带术,两组均使用经尿道胶带方法(TOT)。第一组中有两名患者失去了随访机会,第二组中有一名患者失去了随访机会。主要终点是吊带侵蚀和主要并发症的安全性。第二个终点是疗效,通过咳嗽压力测试和国际尿失禁咨询问卷-尿失禁简表(ICIQ-UI-SF)进行客观和主观评估,分别在1个月、6个月和12个月时进行评估。对以下变量进行了比较:手术时间、术后疼痛评分、留置尿道导尿管时间、住院时间以及评估出院前后尿失禁状况的生活质量(QoL)评估(国际尿失禁咨询问卷-尿失禁简表[ICIQ-UI-SF]):两组患者的人口统计学数据和合并症差异无统计学意义,均呈正态分布。混合胶带术的平均(标清)手术时间为 45.3 ± 3.6 分钟,长于合成胶带术的平均(标清)29.5 ± (3.5) 分钟。与合成胶带相比,手术时间平均(标清)延长了 29.5 ± (3.5) 分钟,这一延长具有统计学意义(P混合胶带可作为 TOT 治疗女性 SUI 的一种选择,其疗效和安全性与合成胶带相当。应考虑长期随访。
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
Urologia Journal
Urologia Journal UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for benign uretero-enteric anastomotic strictures after open radical cystectomy and ileal conduit. On integrative analysis of multi-level gene expression data in Kidney cancer subgrouping. A new approach to repair recurrent vescicourethral anastomotic strictures after radical prostatectomy: The use of prerectal access. Potential value of Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 score in prediction of final cancer pathology parameters in radical prostatectomy patients. Retrograde urethrography (RUG) combined with voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) versus surgical findings in assessment of urethral strictures length.
×
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