INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to assess the reasons for dissatisfaction 10 years after TVT placement. METHODS: Patients who underwent TVT surgery between 1999 and 2001 at two participating units were included. All patients who did not consider themselves to be cured were asked for their reasons. RESULTS: 141 out of 210 patients (81 %) were available for follow-up (median 116 months). In the group of 56 patients who did not consider themselves cured, the reasons were OAB symptoms in 29 patients (52 %), stress urinary incontinence in 13 patients (23 %), and complaints of mixed urinary incontinence in 8 patients (14 %). 85 % of all patients reporting urgency complaints at the time of follow-up and 66 % of patients with SUI at the time of follow-up did not consider themselves cured. CONCLUSIONS: In most cases overactive bladder symptoms were the reason for dissatisfaction. The results of this study support using composite outcomes to assess the results of surgery for urinary incontinence.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to assess the reasons for dissatisfaction 10 years after TVT placement. METHODS:Patients who underwent TVT surgery between 1999 and 2001 at two participating units were included. All patients who did not consider themselves to be cured were asked for their reasons. RESULTS: 141 out of 210 patients (81 %) were available for follow-up (median 116 months). In the group of 56 patients who did not consider themselves cured, the reasons were OAB symptoms in 29 patients (52 %), stress urinary incontinence in 13 patients (23 %), and complaints of mixed urinary incontinence in 8 patients (14 %). 85 % of all patients reporting urgency complaints at the time of follow-up and 66 % of patients with SUI at the time of follow-up did not consider themselves cured. CONCLUSIONS: In most cases overactive bladder symptoms were the reason for dissatisfaction. The results of this study support using composite outcomes to assess the results of surgery for urinary incontinence.
Authors: Dieter Kölle; Karl Tamussino; Engelbert Hanzal; Ayman Tammaa; Oliver Preyer; Arnim Bader; Hermann Enzelsberger; George Ralph; Paul Riss Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark Ellerkmann; Sandip Vasavada; Mark D Walters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Halina M Zyczynski; Leslie Rickey; Keisha Y Dyer; Tracey Wilson; Anne M Stoddard; E Ann Gormley; Yvonne Hsu; John W Kusek; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 8.661
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: W F Stewart; J B Van Rooyen; G W Cundiff; P Abrams; A R Herzog; R Corey; T L Hunt; A J Wein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giovanni A Tommaselli; Costantino Di Carlo; Carmen Formisano; Annamaria Fabozzi; Carmine Nappi Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Stefan Mohr; Christine Marthaler; Sara Imboden; Ash Monga; Michel D Mueller; Annette Kuhn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.894