| Literature DB >> 30534438 |
Sherif Mourad1, Hisham Elshawaf1, Mahmoud Ahmed1, Diaa Eldin Mostafa1, Mohamed Gamal1, Ahmed A Shorbagy1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the clinical (patient's morbidity, quality of life [QoL]) and economic impact of autologous vs synthetic slings in female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as over the last decade, the introduction of synthetic vaginal tapes for managing SUI has gained wide acceptance being quicker with low morbidity. Synthetic vaginal tapes have been progressively replacing the use of autologous rectus fascia. However, the high cost of these synthetic tapes is almost always an obstacle for most patients of limited socio-economic resources in the Egyptian community. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 126 women with SUI. Data for patients that matched the study inclusion criteria were collected from the Urology Department of Ain-Shams University Hospitals from March 2011 to May 2013. Patients were categorised into two groups: Group I included 62 patients who underwent an autologous sling procedure using rectus sheath; and Group II included 64 patients that had a synthetic sling, using transobturator tape (TOT). The following variables were compared: operative time, postoperative pain scores, duration of indwelling urethral catheter, hospital stay, cost including the price of the synthetic tape when used, return to normal activity, and QoL assessment (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form [ICIQ-UI-SF]) before and after discharge from hospital.Entities:
Keywords: ALPP, abdominal leak-point pressure; Autologous sling; EGP, Egyptian pounds; NRS, numerical rating scale; PVR, post-void residual urine volume; QoL, quality of life; SUI, stress urinary incontinence; Stress urinary incontinence; TOT, transobturator tape
Year: 2018 PMID: 30534438 PMCID: PMC6277266 DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.05.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arab J Urol ISSN: 2090-598X
Epidemiological characteristics of the study groups.
| Variable | Group I (rectus sheath) | Group II (TOT) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 62 | 64 | |
| Mean (SD, range): | |||
| Age, years | 56.8 (12) | 54.6 (11.5) | 0.18 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 25 (4, 19–30) | 27 (7, 20–34) | 0.48 |
| Parity, | 2.1 (1.9, 0–4) | 2.9 (2.1, 0–5) | 0.56 |
| ICIQ-UI SF score | 14.6 (5.5, 8–20) | 14.5 (5.95, 8–21) | 0.51 |
| Null parity | 6 | 4 | 0.34 |
| Post-menopausal status | 18 | 12 | 0.42 |
| Prior surgery for SUI | 3 | 2 | 0.90 |
| Prior hysterectomy | 4 | 5 | 0.44 |
Mean operating time and postoperative outcomes.
| Variable | Group I (rectus sheath) | Group II (TOT) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 62 | 64 | |
| Mean (SD) | |||
| Operating time, min | 100 (30.6) | 17 (6.6) | 0.03 |
| Duration of bladder catheterisation, days | 2 (0.5) | 0.8 (0.5) | 0.56 |
| PVR, mL | 68 (58) | 28 (19) | 0.63 |
| Time to return to daily activity, days | 9.3 (1.2) | 2.3 (1.3) | 0.02 |
Fig. 1Comparison of both mean duration of bladder catheterisation and time to return to daily activity for Group I (GI) and Group II (GII).
Fig. 2Intra- and postoperative variables for Group I (GI) and Group II (GII).
Intra- and postoperative complications, and pain.
| Complication | Group I (rectus sheath) ( | Group II (TOT) ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bladder injury, | 4 (6.45) | 0 | 0.03 |
| Vaginal injury, | 0 | 3 (4.68) | 0.02 |
| Haemorrhage (>200 mL), | 1 (1.6) | 0 | 0.13 |
| Retropubic haematoma, | 2 (3.22) | 0 | 0.13 |
| Pelvic abscess, | 1 (1.6) | 0 | 0.28 |
| Postoperative pain NRS, mean (SD; range) | 4 (3, 0–9) | 1.4 (0.8, 0–5) | 0.03 |
| Overall morbidity, | 8 (12.90) | 3 (4.68) | 0.28 |
Fig. 3Postoperative pain scores for Group I (GI) and Group II (GII).
Cure rates and voiding problems at the 6-month postoperative visit.
| Variable | Group I (rectus sheath) ( | Group II (TOT) ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome, | |||
| Dry | 52 (83.87) | 60 (93.75) | 0.58 |
| Improved | 4 (6.45) | 3 (4.68) | 0.71 |
| Failed (unchanged or worsen) | 6 (9.67) | 1 (1.56) | 0.29 |
| | 6 (9.67) | 2 (3.13) | 0.16 |
| | 8 (12.9) | 1 (1.56) | 0.48 |
| Cost, mean (SD) | |||
| Cost/case, EGP | 2571.65 (254.8) | 3502.34 (196.9) | 0.59 |