Repeat mid-urethral sling for recurrent female stress urinary incontinence.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of repeat mid-urethral sling after a failed primary sling for stress urinary incontinence.
METHODS
A total of 112 women with recurrent stress incontinence after primary mid-urethral sling underwent a repeat procedure between 2000 and 2011. All patients had a preoperative clinical and urodynamic evaluation. Outcomes were divided into three groups: cured (no more leaks), improved (decrease of leaks), or failed.
RESULTS
All patients had urethral hypermobility and 12.9 % had intrinsic sphincter deficiency [maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) ≤ 20 cmH2O]. Median MUCP was 41 cmH20. Overactive bladder was found in 5.7 % of women. The second sling placed was one of the following: retropubic Tension-free Vaginal Tape (49 %), transobturator tape (48 %), or mini-sling (3 %). No intraoperative morbidity was reported. After the second sling was placed, 68 (60.7 %) patients were subjectively cured and 18 (16.1 %) improved (76.8 % success overall) with a mean follow-up of 21 months. Success rates were 72.2 and 81.8 % for transobturator and retropubic slings, respectively, with no significant difference. Multivariable analysis showed higher odds of cure and improvement with the retropubic approach after adjusting for MUCP. Late complication rates were comparable to those observed after a first sling. Urodynamic parameters were not associated with postoperative success.
CONCLUSIONS
Repeat mid-urethral sling for recurrent female stress urinary incontinence is nearly 77 % successful in a group of patients with persistent urethral hypermobility. A retropubic approach might be preferred for patients with low urethral closure pressures.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.