Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2021
Success of Concomitant Versus Interval Slings for Prevention and Treatment of Bothersome de Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Fitzgerald Jocelyn J, Soriano Alex, Panza Joseph, Hoke Tanya P, Desai Shweta P, Artsen Amanda M, Andiman Sarah E, Antosh Danielle D, Gutman Robert E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite large trials designed to guide management on whether to perform a prophylactic continence procedure at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, it remains unclear if a staged or interval approach confers advantages in treatment of bothersome stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women without bothersome SUI before their POP repair.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare success of concomitant versus interval slings for the prevention/treatment of de novo bothersome SUI after POP repair.
STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up enrolled women with minimal or no SUI symptoms who underwent minimally invasive apical surgery for stage 2 or higher POP between 2011 and 2018 and had a concomitant sling placed at the time of POP surgery or an interval sling placed. Prospectively, all patients were administered the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short-Form 6, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and questions on reoperation/retreatment and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients had concomitant slings, and 60 had interval slings. There were no differences in the proportion of patients who had intrinsic sphincter deficiency (22% vs 20%), although the concomitant sling group was more likely to have a positive cough stress test result (30% vs 8%, P = 0.006). The interval sling group was more likely to report "yes" to SUI symptoms on Urogenital Distress Inventory Short-Form 6 (3% vs 30%, P = 0.0006) and during their postoperative visit (0% vs 24%, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in surgical complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Among women with minimal or no SUI symptoms undergoing prolapse repair, concomitant slings resulted in lower rates of bothersome SUI compared with similar women undergoing interval sling placement.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare success of concomitant versus interval slings for the prevention/treatment of de novo bothersome SUI after POP repair.
STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up enrolled women with minimal or no SUI symptoms who underwent minimally invasive apical surgery for stage 2 or higher POP between 2011 and 2018 and had a concomitant sling placed at the time of POP surgery or an interval sling placed. Prospectively, all patients were administered the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short-Form 6, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and questions on reoperation/retreatment and complications.
RESULTS: A total of 120 patients had concomitant slings, and 60 had interval slings. There were no differences in the proportion of patients who had intrinsic sphincter deficiency (22% vs 20%), although the concomitant sling group was more likely to have a positive cough stress test result (30% vs 8%, P = 0.006). The interval sling group was more likely to report "yes" to SUI symptoms on Urogenital Distress Inventory Short-Form 6 (3% vs 30%, P = 0.0006) and during their postoperative visit (0% vs 24%, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in surgical complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Among women with minimal or no SUI symptoms undergoing prolapse repair, concomitant slings resulted in lower rates of bothersome SUI compared with similar women undergoing interval sling placement.