Incontinence outcomes in women undergoing retropubic mid-urethral sling: a retrospective cohort study comparing Safyre™ and handmade sling

Fernando Terziotti, E. Gregório, M. Averbeck, Silvio Henrique Maia de Almeida
{"title":"Incontinence outcomes in women undergoing retropubic mid-urethral sling: a retrospective cohort study comparing Safyre™ and handmade sling","authors":"Fernando Terziotti, E. Gregório, M. Averbeck, Silvio Henrique Maia de Almeida","doi":"10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose This study examined and compared efficacy, safety, satisfaction, and complications of the retropubic Safyre™ sling and a retropubic hand-made synthetic sling (HMS) in a short-, mid- and long-term follow-up. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of women who underwent Safyre™ or HMS between March 7ths 2005 and December 27ths, 2017. Patients had first assessment (7-10 days), second (40-45 days), and third (sixth month) postoperatively. Between September and December 2018, patients who completed at least one year of surgery, received a telephone call. Follow-up compared quartiles of follow-up time to determine complications (Clavien-Dindo), success rates (International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Short Form – ICIQ-UI SF), and patient satisfaction. Results Three hundred fifty-one patients underwent surgery and 221 (63%) were evaluated after a median of 78.47 (± 38.69) months, 125 (55%) in the HMS, and 96 (45%) in the Safyre™ group. Higher intraoperative bladder injury was observed with Safyre™ (0% vs. 4.2%, p=0.034), and a tendency for urinary retention, requiring indwelling urinary catheter over 24 hours (2.4% vs. 8.3%, p=0.061). Both HMS (p<0.001) and Safyre™ (p<0.001) presented improvements on ICIQ-UI SF. There were no differences in satisfaction, subjective cure rates, ICIQ-UI SF, or complications between groups. Conclusions Both HMS and Safyre™ have similar satisfaction and subjective cure rates, with marked ICIQ-UI SF score improvement. Higher rates of intraoperative bladder injury were seen in patients who received Safyre™ retropubic sling.","PeriodicalId":13674,"journal":{"name":"International Brazilian Journal of Urology : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology","volume":"121 1","pages":"649 - 659"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Brazilian Journal of Urology : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose This study examined and compared efficacy, safety, satisfaction, and complications of the retropubic Safyre™ sling and a retropubic hand-made synthetic sling (HMS) in a short-, mid- and long-term follow-up. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of women who underwent Safyre™ or HMS between March 7ths 2005 and December 27ths, 2017. Patients had first assessment (7-10 days), second (40-45 days), and third (sixth month) postoperatively. Between September and December 2018, patients who completed at least one year of surgery, received a telephone call. Follow-up compared quartiles of follow-up time to determine complications (Clavien-Dindo), success rates (International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Short Form – ICIQ-UI SF), and patient satisfaction. Results Three hundred fifty-one patients underwent surgery and 221 (63%) were evaluated after a median of 78.47 (± 38.69) months, 125 (55%) in the HMS, and 96 (45%) in the Safyre™ group. Higher intraoperative bladder injury was observed with Safyre™ (0% vs. 4.2%, p=0.034), and a tendency for urinary retention, requiring indwelling urinary catheter over 24 hours (2.4% vs. 8.3%, p=0.061). Both HMS (p<0.001) and Safyre™ (p<0.001) presented improvements on ICIQ-UI SF. There were no differences in satisfaction, subjective cure rates, ICIQ-UI SF, or complications between groups. Conclusions Both HMS and Safyre™ have similar satisfaction and subjective cure rates, with marked ICIQ-UI SF score improvement. Higher rates of intraoperative bladder injury were seen in patients who received Safyre™ retropubic sling.
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
女性接受耻骨后尿道中吊带的尿失禁结局:一项比较Safyre™和手工吊带的回顾性队列研究
摘要目的:本研究在短期、中期和长期随访中检查并比较了耻骨后Safyre™吊带和耻骨后手工合成吊带(HMS)的疗效、安全性、满意度和并发症。方法回顾性分析2005年3月7日至2017年12月27日期间接受Safyre™或HMS治疗的女性的前瞻性数据库。患者术后进行第一次评估(7-10天),第二次评估(40-45天),第三次评估(6个月)。在2018年9月至12月期间,完成至少一年手术的患者接到了一个电话。随访比较随访时间的四分位数,以确定并发症(Clavien-Dindo),成功率(国际尿失禁咨询模块问卷简短形式- ICIQ-UI SF)和患者满意度。结果351例患者接受了手术,221例(63%)患者在中位时间78.47(±38.69)个月后接受评估,HMS组125例(55%),Safyre组96例(45%)。Safyre™术中膀胱损伤较高(0%比4.2%,p=0.034),尿潴留倾向,需要留置导尿管超过24小时(2.4%比8.3%,p=0.061)。HMS (p<0.001)和Safyre™(p<0.001)对ICIQ-UI SF均有改善。两组患者在满意度、主观治愈率、ICIQ-UI SF或并发症方面均无差异。结论HMS和Safyre™的满意度和主观治愈率相似,ICIQ-UI SF评分明显提高。术中膀胱损伤发生率较高的患者使用Safyre™耻骨后吊带。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Advocating hormonal treatment to prevent adult infertility in patients diagnosed with congenital undescended testes REPLY TO THE AUTHORS: Re: One-day voiding diary in the evaluation of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in children Vesical imaging reporting and data system (VI-RADS) in bladder cancer diagnosis in review in this number of International Brazilian Journal of Urology The evolution of stress urinary incontinence treatment techniques of the last three decades Impact of artificial urinary sphincter erosion in the reimplantation of the device
×
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