INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is currently no data on the safety and efficacy of the Advantage sling despite its widespread use. METHODS: We compared the efficiency and safety outcome data of 556 tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and 108 Advantage slings after assessing for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The two groups proved comparable. Bladder injury rates were 4.6% for the Advantage group and 2.9% for the TVT group (p = 0.36). Subjective stress incontinence cure were 83.3% and 85.3%, respectively (p = 0.66). Incidences of de novo urgency, urge incontinence, and voiding difficulties were 22.2% vs 14.7% (p = 0.06), 9.3% vs 7.4% (p = 0.55), and 11.1% vs 6.7% (p = 0.11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences between the two slings were observed apart from a non-significant trend towards more de novo urgency and voiding difficulty symptoms with the Advantage group. It may be possible that due to its different biomechanical properties, the Advantage slings should be left looser.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is currently no data on the safety and efficacy of the Advantage sling despite its widespread use. METHODS: We compared the efficiency and safety outcome data of 556 tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and 108 Advantage slings after assessing for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The two groups proved comparable. Bladder injury rates were 4.6% for the Advantage group and 2.9% for the TVT group (p = 0.36). Subjective stress incontinence cure were 83.3% and 85.3%, respectively (p = 0.66). Incidences of de novo urgency, urge incontinence, and voiding difficulties were 22.2% vs 14.7% (p = 0.06), 9.3% vs 7.4% (p = 0.55), and 11.1% vs 6.7% (p = 0.11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences between the two slings were observed apart from a non-significant trend towards more de novo urgency and voiding difficulty symptoms with the Advantage group. It may be possible that due to its different biomechanical properties, the Advantage slings should be left looser.
Authors: Pamela A Moalli; Noah Papas; Shawn Menefee; Mike Albo; Leslie Meyn; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2008-01-09
Authors: Tomasz Rechberger; Katarzyna Rzeźniczuk; Paweł Skorupski; Aneta Adamiak; Jacek Tomaszewski; Włodzimierz Baranowski; Jerzy A Jakowicki Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2003-11-25
Authors: Kobi Stav; Peter L Dwyer; Anna Rosamilia; Lore Schierlitz; Yik N Lim; Joseph Lee Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-10-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jerry G Blaivas; Rajveer S Purohit; Matthew S Benedon; Gabriel Mekel; Michael Stern; Mubashir Billah; Kola Olugbade; Robert Bendavid; Vladimir Iakovlev Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 14.432