4.2 Article

Role of intrinsic sphincter deficiency with and without urethral hypomobility on the outcome of tape insertion

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1910-1916

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.23211

关键词

cure rate; midurethral sling; one-third rule; pelvic floor sonography; stress urinary incontinence; tension-free vaginal tape

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsIntrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) is a known risk factor for therapy failure after tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) insertion. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the severity of ISD alone or other factors such as urethral mobility and tape localization influence outcomes. MethodsOne hundred and nine women with urodynamically determined ISD, a TVT insertion, and a 6-month follow-up visit were included. Urethral length, mobility, and tape localization were evaluated by pelvic floor sonography. Patients were classified into three urethral mobility groups (hypomobile, normomobile, hypermobile). Surgical outcome was assessed by a combination of objective and subjective criteria. ResultsTherapeutic success rate after TVT insertion was 81.6%. The severity of ISD did not associate with therapy failure. But urethral mobility (P<0.0001), relative tape position (P=0.0003), and tape-urethra distance (P<0.0001) differed between cured and not cured patient groups. Patients with a relative tape position toward 1/2 of urethral length had a higher cure rate. Significantly different cure rates (P=0.0003) were found for hypomobile (67%), normomobile (76%), and hypermobile (100%) urethras. For ISD patients with a hypomobile urethra, highest cure rates were obtained for tape-urethra distances between 2.5 and 3.5mm. ConclusionsThe reduced cure rate for ISD patients was due to the subgroup with a hypomobile urethra. A prospective study is needed to confirm that slightly shorter tape-urethra distances and a relative tape position more toward the mid-urethra will lead to better outcomes for this patient group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据