INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Despite established comparable efficacy between retropubic midurethral (RMUS) and transobturator slings, there are conflicting data regarding single-incision mini-slings (SIMS). This study tests the null hypothesis that the MiniArc® Single-Incision Sling is equivalent to the ALIGN® Urethral Support System for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: Women who underwent a sling for SUI from 1 January 2008 through 31 December 2009 were identified (N = 324). A follow-up survey was mailed. Primary outcomes were treatment failure, defined as International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) score >0 or additional anti-incontinence procedure, and stress-specific incontinence (SSI). Secondary outcomes included Patient Global Impression of Severity and Improvement (PGI-SI), satisfaction, de novo urge, and complications. RESULTS: The study included 202 women who returned the survey. The SIMS group had higher body mass index (BMI) (30.7 ± 6.5 vs 28.9 ± 6.0 kg/m(2), P = 0.052) and shorter follow-up (18.6 ± 11.5 vs 22.9 ± 14.6 months, P = 0.019). Treatment failure was higher in SIMS compared with RMUS (76.3 % vs 64.2 %) with adjusted odds ratio of 1.84 (95 % CI, 1.0, 3.5). The SIMS group was more likely to have postoperative SSI, with adjusted OR of 2.4 (95 % CI; 1.3-4.5). The RMUS group reported more improvement and satisfaction. Incidence of de novo urge and complications were similar between groups. Reoperation for mesh erosion was more likely in the RMUS group, while the SIMS had a higher reoperation rate for SUI. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with retropubic ALIGN® Slings, MiniArc® Single-Incision Slings are less effective, with more postoperative incontinence, less patient-reported improvement, satisfaction, and higher reoperation rates for SUI.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Despite established comparable efficacy between retropubic midurethral (RMUS) and transobturator slings, there are conflicting data regarding single-incision mini-slings (SIMS). This study tests the null hypothesis that the MiniArc® Single-Incision Sling is equivalent to the ALIGN® Urethral Support System for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS:Women who underwent a sling for SUI from 1 January 2008 through 31 December 2009 were identified (N = 324). A follow-up survey was mailed. Primary outcomes were treatment failure, defined as International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) score >0 or additional anti-incontinence procedure, and stress-specific incontinence (SSI). Secondary outcomes included Patient Global Impression of Severity and Improvement (PGI-SI), satisfaction, de novo urge, and complications. RESULTS: The study included 202 women who returned the survey. The SIMS group had higher body mass index (BMI) (30.7 ± 6.5 vs 28.9 ± 6.0 kg/m(2), P = 0.052) and shorter follow-up (18.6 ± 11.5 vs 22.9 ± 14.6 months, P = 0.019). Treatment failure was higher in SIMS compared with RMUS (76.3 % vs 64.2 %) with adjusted odds ratio of 1.84 (95 % CI, 1.0, 3.5). The SIMS group was more likely to have postoperative SSI, with adjusted OR of 2.4 (95 % CI; 1.3-4.5). The RMUS group reported more improvement and satisfaction. Incidence of de novo urge and complications were similar between groups. Reoperation for mesh erosion was more likely in the RMUS group, while the SIMS had a higher reoperation rate for SUI. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with retropubic ALIGN® Slings, MiniArc® Single-Incision Slings are less effective, with more postoperative incontinence, less patient-reported improvement, satisfaction, and higher reoperation rates for SUI.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Maria Andrada Hamer; Per-Göran Larsson; Pia Teleman; Christina Eten Bergqvist; Jan Persson Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-06-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jaromir Masata; Kamil Svabik; Karel Zvara; Petra Drahoradova; Rachid El Haddad; Petr Hubka; Alois Martan Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Lekha S Hota; Katherine Hanaway; Michele R Hacker; Anthony Disciullo; Eman Elkadry; Patricia Dramitinos; Alexander Shapiro; Tanaz Ferzandi; Peter L Rosenblatt Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Piet Hinoul; Harry A M Vervest; Jan den Boon; Pieter L Venema; Marielle M Lakeman; Alfredo L Milani; Jan-Paul W R Roovers Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Sandip Vasavada; Mark Ellerkmann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Burhan Coskun; Rebecca S Lavelle; Feras Alhalabi; Gary E Lemack; Philippe E Zimmern Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-10-23 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