| Literature DB >> 24170223 |
Paulo Palma1, Cassio Riccetto, Elaine Bronzatto, Rodrigo Castro, Sebastian Altuna.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The Ophira Mini Sling System involves anchoring a midurethral, low-tension tape to the obturator internus muscles bilaterally at the level of the tendinous arc. Success rates in different subsets of patients are still to be defined. This work aims to identify which factors influence the 2-year outcomes of this treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24170223 PMCID: PMC3997832 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2242-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN: 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894
Fig. 1a–c Surgical set. Detail of Ophira Mini Sling System antirotational tip and retractable insertion guide
Fig. 2a Local anesthesia; b vaginal incision; c dissection laterally toward the ascending ramus of the ischiopubic bone; d, e mesh insertion; f intraoperative stress test; g removal of retractable insertion guide; h fine adjustment of the mesh; i end of the procedure
Relevant baseline clinical variables for all participants (n = 124)
| Variables | Results |
|---|---|
| Previous anti-incontinence surgeries, | 35 (28.2)a |
| Age, mean (SD) [years] | 54.8 (9.9) |
| Previous gestation, mean (SD) | 3.0 (2.0) |
| Postmenopause, | 80 (64.5) |
| VLPP, median (range) | 77.0 (25.0–147.0) |
| Mixed urinary incontinence, | 51 (41.1) |
| Body mass index, kg/cm2, mean (SD) [] | 27.9 (4.6) |
aTwenty-eight of these patients reached 2-year follow-up. This is the number used for further analysis of naïve and previously operated patients
Comparison between objective and subjective 1- and 2-year follow-up outcomes
| Variables | Preoperative ( | 1 year ( | 2 years ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-h PWTa,b | Mean (SD) | 12.5 (15.4) | 1.4 (5.9) | 2.2 (9.1) | 0.477c |
| Dry, | NA | 103 (83.1) | 81 (85.3) | ||
| Improvement, | NA | 9 (7.3) | 6 (6.3) | 0.368d | |
| Failure, | NA | 12 (9.7) | 8 (8.4) | ||
| CSTa | Negative, | 0 (0) | 112 (90.3) | 82 (86.3) | 0.508d |
| Positive, | 124 (100) | 12 (9.7) | 13 (13.7) | ||
| ICIQ-SFa | Mean (SD) | 15.8 (3.9) | 3.0 (5.1) | 1.9 (4.3) | 0.148b |
| UDI-6a | Mean (SD) | 9.2 (3.1) | 2.3 (3.0) | 1.7 (2.2) | 0.106b |
PWT pad weight test, CST cough stress test, ICIQ-SF International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Short Form, UDI-6 Urinary Distress Inventory, SD standard deviation
aPostoperative and preoperative records were compared using Student’s two-tailed, dependent t test for continuous variables and McNemar test for CST. All the comparisons resulted in p < 0.0005
bFor the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, there were four and three missing data; we considered these as failed because the last failure was carried forward
cOne- and 2-year comparison with Student’s two-tailed independent t test
dOne- and 2-year comparison with Student’s independent t test (PWT) and McNemar-Bowker test (CST)
Univariate and multivariate analysis
| Factor | Nfailed/Nfactor (%) | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95 % CI) |
| OR (95 % CI) |
| ||
| Previous surgery | 5/28 (17.9) | 4.00 (1.02–15.57) | 0.032* | 7.7 (1.1–53.6) | 0.04* |
| Age ≥60 years | 3/31 (9.7) | 1.26 (0.32–4.85) | 0.759 | ||
| VLPP <60 cmH2O | 4/30 (13.3) | 4.31 (0.74–25.04) | 0.081 | ||
| BMI ≥30 kg/m2 | 4/25 (16.0) | 2.81 (0.64–12.25) | 0.156 | ||
| Mixed incontinence | 2/29 (6.9) | 0.74 (0.14–3.91) | 0.723 | ||
| Menopause | 6/53 (10.2) | 1.83 (0.35–9.62) | 0.468 | ||
| Parity ≥3 | 3/47 (6.4) | 0.56 (0.13–2.49) | 0.440 | ||
VLPP Valsalva leak-point pressure, BMI body mass index, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
aPostoperative and preoperative records were compared using Student’s two-tailed, dependent t test for continuous variables and McNemar test for CST. All the comparisons resulted in p < 0.0005
bFor the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, there were four and three missing data; we considered these as failed because the last failure was carried forward
cOne- and 2-year comparison with Student’s two-tailed independent t test
dOne- and 2-year comparison with Student’s independent t test (PWT) and McNemar-Bowker test (CST)
*Statistically significant
Fig. 3Success rates according to pad weight test (PWT) for the segmented sample
Results stratified according to the risk factor of previous anti-incontinence surgery
| Variables ( | Failure according to PWT | Positive CST | ICIQ-SF | UDI-6 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Mean (SD) |
| Mean (SD) |
| ||
| Previous surgery (28) | 5 (17.9) | 0.032* | 7 (25.0) | 0.038* | 4.4 (6.4) | 0.019* | 2.5 (3.1) | 0.070 | |
| Naïve patients (67) | 3 (4.5) | 6 (9.0) | 0.8 (2.2) | 1.4 (1.6) | |||||
aΧ2 test
bIndependent Student’s t test
*Statistically significant