Transobturator versus single incision slings: 1-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare 1-year surgical outcomes following transobturator (TO) sling placement and single incision (SI) sling placement for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: We performed a randomized trial at a single institution. Patients with urodynamically proven SUI were offered participation and randomized to placement of a TO sling (Monarc™) or a SI sling (MiniArc™) between 2008 and 2011. The primary outcome measure was urinary leakage during standardized cough stress test (CST). Forty subjects in each group were required to achieve 80 % power to detect an effect size of 0.25. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients were randomized with 49 patients in the TO group and 49 patients in the SI group. Preoperative demographics were similar between the groups (Table 1). The TO group had a significantly longer sling operative time (10.7 ± 4.8 min vs. 7.8 ± 4.9 min, p < 0.001) and greater estimated blood loss (31.6 ± 26.6 mL vs. 22.9 ± 22.1 mL, p = 0.02). At the 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in the primary outcome with 9 TO patients (21 %) and 12 SI patients (29 %) having a positive CST (p = 0.5). A composite measurement of 'failure', defined as patient-reported SUI and a positive CST, showed no difference between the TO group (17 %) and the SI group (27 %; p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The SI sling provides comparable objective efficacy to the TO sling at 1 year.

Pregnancy after transvaginal sling for stress urinary incontinence: a case series.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the incidence, medical course, and outcomes of women who carried a pregnancy to delivery after the placement of a transvaginal mesh sling for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in a closed health care system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case series of 15 women identified within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California region based on coding for placement of a sling for SUI. Records were cross-matched against the records of live births. The electronic medical records of subjects were extensively reviewed. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified and included in the analysis. Twelve patients had retropubic midurethral slings, 2 patients had transobturator slings, and one had a single-incision sling procedure. Ten of 15 were delivered via cesarean delivery. Five of the 15 patients had concomitant prolapse surgery at the time of sling placement; all of these patients had cesarean deliveries. There were no reports of voiding dysfunction or sling-related complications during pregnancy. Eleven of 15 patients were dry after the sling procedure, and 9 of the 15 were dry after delivery. No patients have had additional procedures or interventions for SUI after pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series may suggest that vaginal delivery is not contraindicated and sling-related complications during pregnancy are not prevalent.

Outcome measures and definition of cure in female stress urinary incontinence surgery: a survey of recent publications.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Much variability exists in outcome measures used to report success of SUI surgery. We set out to evaluate outcome measures and definitions of cure in SUI surgery studies. METHODS: Outcome measures, success rates, and definition of cure were analyzed from published series and compared to recommendations by leading authorities. RESULTS: Ninety-one publications were analyzed. Thirty (33%) utilized solely subjective measures, four (4%) utilized only objective measures, and 57 (63%) included both. Sixty-one (67%) used symptom questionnaires, 56 (60%) QOL questionnaires, and six (7%) visual analog scale. Twelve (13%) used voiding diaries and 52 (56%) used self-reporting as an outcome measure. Objective measures: 52 (57%) cough stress test, 37 (41%) urodynamic evaluation, 28 (31%) pad testing and a combination in 33 (36%). Few studies adhered to one set of outcome recommendations. CONCLUSION: Outcome measures used to evaluate success of anti-incontinence procedures lack consensus and comparability.