Literature DB >> 28929543

Does the suburethral sling change its location?

Wojciech Majkusiak1, Andrzej Pomian1, Paweł Tomasik1, Edyta Horosz1, Aneta Zwierzchowska1, Jacek Kociszewski2, Ewa Barcz1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain whether a phenomenon of sling migration exists after suburethral sling placement, whether this might be responsible for suboptimal sling location and persistent incontinence, and whether a link exists between sling dislocation or migration and risk factors, such as obesity or age.
METHODS: The present prospective cohort study was carried out in a group of 244 patients who underwent retropubic sling implantation. Sling location was determined by means of pelvic floor ultrasound, and calculated relative to the individual patient's urethral length measured before the procedure. The sling location was visualized on 1 day, and 1 and 6 months post-surgery. Overweight/obese and elderly patients were analyzed separately to assess the possible influence of those factors on sling location.
RESULTS: The mean urethral length in the studied cohort was 28.76 ± 3.67 mm. The mean tape position 1 day post-surgery was 66.18 ± 8.43% of the urethral length, and it did not change 1 and 6 months post-surgery in the whole group. Similar results were obtained in elderly and overweight/obese patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal sling location appears to result from incorrect surgical technique, and should be diagnosed and treated early after the primary surgery. Sling location does not change after mid-term follow up.
© 2017 The Japanese Urological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  complications; operative surgical procedures; stress urinary incontinence; suburethral slings; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28929543     DOI: 10.1111/iju.13448

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Urol        ISSN: 0919-8172            Impact factor:   3.369


  6 in total

Review 1.  Obesity and Stress Urinary Incontinence: Impact on Pathophysiology and Treatment.

Authors:  Alex Fuselier; Jordan Hanberry; J Margaret Lovin; Alex Gomelsky
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Pelvic floor ultrasound in the diagnosis of sling complications.

Authors:  Lewis Chan; Vincent Tse
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Clinical application of 2D and 3D pelvic floor ultrasound of mid-urethral slings and vaginal wall mesh.

Authors:  Annika Taithongchai; Abdul H Sultan; Pawel A Wieczorek; Ranee Thakar
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-05-11       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Using clinical estimate or catheter measurement of urethral mid-point result in similar retropubic mid-urethral sling position: a randomized trial.

Authors:  H C Barnes; A Akl; S K Taege; C Brincat; L Brubaker; E R Mueller
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Demographic risk factors for mid-urethral sling failure. Do they really matter?

Authors:  Wojciech Majkusiak; Andrzej Pomian; Edyta Horosz; Aneta Zwierzchowska; Paweł Tomasik; Wojciech Lisik; Ewa Barcz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in women with stress urinary incontinence treated with suburethral slings: a randomised trial.

Authors:  Jacek K Szymański; Kornelia Zaręba; Grzegorz Jakiel; Aneta Słabuszewska-Jóźwiak
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 1.195

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.