Cargando…

Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability

Stress urinary incontinence is a common, disabling, and costly medical problem that affects approximately 50% of women with urinary incontinence. Suburethral retropubic slings have been developed as a minimally invasive and effective surgical option, and they have been used as a first-line treatment...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moldovan, Christina P, Marinone, Michelle E, Staack, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25733928
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S59265
_version_ 1782481078004482048
author Moldovan, Christina P
Marinone, Michelle E
Staack, Andrea
author_facet Moldovan, Christina P
Marinone, Michelle E
Staack, Andrea
author_sort Moldovan, Christina P
collection PubMed
description Stress urinary incontinence is a common, disabling, and costly medical problem that affects approximately 50% of women with urinary incontinence. Suburethral retropubic slings have been developed as a minimally invasive and effective surgical option, and they have been used as a first-line treatment for stress urinary incontinence since 1995. However, complications including vaginal extrusion, erosion, pain, bleeding, infections, lower urinary tract symptoms, urinary retention, and incontinence have been reported with use of the slings. Several companies manufacture sling kits, and the sling kits vary with regard to the composition of the mesh and introducer needle. The aim of this review was to determine which sling kit was most effective for patients, had minimal reported side effects, and was best accepted by patients and surgeons. In a review of the literature, it was found that a total of 38 studies were published between 1995 and 2014 that reported on eight tension-free retropubic sling kits: SPARC, RetroArc, Align, Advantage, Lynx, Desara, Supris, and Gynecare TVT. The Gynecare TVT was the most cited sling kit; the second most cited was the SPARC. This review provides a summary of the studies that have examined positive and negative outcomes of the retropubic tension-free suburethral sling procedure using various sling kits. Overall, the results of the literature review indicated that data from comparisons of the available sling kits are insufficient to make an evidenced-based recommendation. Therefore, the decision regarding which sling kit is appropriate to use in surgery is determined by the medical provider’s preference, training, and past experience, and not by the patient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4337501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43375012015-03-02 Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability Moldovan, Christina P Marinone, Michelle E Staack, Andrea Int J Womens Health Review Stress urinary incontinence is a common, disabling, and costly medical problem that affects approximately 50% of women with urinary incontinence. Suburethral retropubic slings have been developed as a minimally invasive and effective surgical option, and they have been used as a first-line treatment for stress urinary incontinence since 1995. However, complications including vaginal extrusion, erosion, pain, bleeding, infections, lower urinary tract symptoms, urinary retention, and incontinence have been reported with use of the slings. Several companies manufacture sling kits, and the sling kits vary with regard to the composition of the mesh and introducer needle. The aim of this review was to determine which sling kit was most effective for patients, had minimal reported side effects, and was best accepted by patients and surgeons. In a review of the literature, it was found that a total of 38 studies were published between 1995 and 2014 that reported on eight tension-free retropubic sling kits: SPARC, RetroArc, Align, Advantage, Lynx, Desara, Supris, and Gynecare TVT. The Gynecare TVT was the most cited sling kit; the second most cited was the SPARC. This review provides a summary of the studies that have examined positive and negative outcomes of the retropubic tension-free suburethral sling procedure using various sling kits. Overall, the results of the literature review indicated that data from comparisons of the available sling kits are insufficient to make an evidenced-based recommendation. Therefore, the decision regarding which sling kit is appropriate to use in surgery is determined by the medical provider’s preference, training, and past experience, and not by the patient. Dove Medical Press 2015-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4337501/ /pubmed/25733928 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S59265 Text en © 2015 Moldovan et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Moldovan, Christina P
Marinone, Michelle E
Staack, Andrea
Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
title Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
title_full Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
title_fullStr Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
title_full_unstemmed Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
title_short Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
title_sort transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25733928
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S59265
work_keys_str_mv AT moldovanchristinap transvaginalretropubicslingsystemsefficacyandpatientacceptability
AT marinonemichellee transvaginalretropubicslingsystemsefficacyandpatientacceptability
AT staackandrea transvaginalretropubicslingsystemsefficacyandpatientacceptability