Different sling procedures for stress urinary incontinence: A lesson from 453 patients

• Main Authors: De-Yi Luo, Kun-Jie Wang, Han-Chao Zhang, Yi Dai, Tong-Xing Yang, Hong Shen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2014-03-01
• Series: Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences
• Subjects: Sling procedure; Stress urinary incontinence; TVT; TVT-O; TVT-S
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X13002258

Several midurethral sling (MUS) procedures, such as tension-free vaginal tape (TVT), TVT obturator (TVT-O), tension-free vaginal tape SECUR (TVT-S), and pubovaginal sling (PVS), have been used for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI); however, which method is best for a particular patient group is not known. This study aimed to identify the best rationale for choosing the optimal MUS procedure for each patient. In total, 453 consecutive female patients with SUI who were treated with MUSs in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from September 2003 to September 2011 were enrolled in this study. All the patients underwent comprehensive pre-, intra-, and postoperative evaluations, including collection of demographic information, pelvic examination, and urodynamic testing, and operation-related complications were recorded. The Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire was also completed. Under local or general anesthesia, 105 cases were treated with TVT, 243 with TVT-O, 90 with TVT-S, and 15 with PVS. Patients with different profiles in terms of age, symptom duration, concomitant procedures, urodynamic parameters, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification score were treated successfully; the body mass index did not differ significantly among the various treatment options. The cure and improvement rates were similar among the treatment groups: 97.14% (102/105) in TVT, 100% (243/243) in TVT-O, 98.89% (89/90) in TVT-S, and 100% (15/15) in PVS. Only minor complications were experienced by the patients. In conclusion, each MUS procedure was observed to be safe and effective in different subpopulations of patients, and the results suggest that appropriate patient selection is crucial for the success of each MUS procedure.