TY - JOUR
T1 - Anterior intravaginal slingplasty tunneller device for stress incontinence and posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical vault prolapse
T2 - a 2-year prospective multicenter study
AU - Vardy, Michael D.
AU - Brodman, Michael
AU - Olivera, Cedric K.
AU - Zhou, Huan Sue
AU - Flisser, Adam J.
AU - Bercik, Richard S.
PY - 2007/7
Y1 - 2007/7
N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to report the outcome for (1) anterior intravaginal slingplasty in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence and (2) posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical prolapse (≥stage II). Study Design: This was a 2-year prospective multicenter study: patients, 430; anterior intravaginal slingplasty, 144; posterior intravaginal slingplasty, 164; both procedures, 122 (552 tapes total). At 6 and 12 months, the results of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, cough stress test, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation were assessed. Statistical analyses used paired t-tests. Results: Of the women in the study, 95% (42 women) had a negative cough stress test result through 12 months (n = 44 women), and 96% (127 women) had a negative cough stress test result at 6 months (n = 132). At 6 months, apical support was optimal in 95.3% (143/150 women) and was satisfactory in 2.7% (4/150 women) and at 12 months, 98.1% (52/53 women), 1.9% (1/53 women). Seventeen of 430 patients (4.0%) had vaginal mesh extrusion. Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores significantly improved (P < .0001). Conclusion: Anterior intravaginal slingplasty and posterior intravaginal slingplasty are safe and effective when performed with other procedures. For anterior intravaginal slingplasty, the rates of perforation and retention are low, but early extrusions are seen. Patients showed improvements in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, regardless of extrusion.
AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to report the outcome for (1) anterior intravaginal slingplasty in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence and (2) posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical prolapse (≥stage II). Study Design: This was a 2-year prospective multicenter study: patients, 430; anterior intravaginal slingplasty, 144; posterior intravaginal slingplasty, 164; both procedures, 122 (552 tapes total). At 6 and 12 months, the results of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, cough stress test, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation were assessed. Statistical analyses used paired t-tests. Results: Of the women in the study, 95% (42 women) had a negative cough stress test result through 12 months (n = 44 women), and 96% (127 women) had a negative cough stress test result at 6 months (n = 132). At 6 months, apical support was optimal in 95.3% (143/150 women) and was satisfactory in 2.7% (4/150 women) and at 12 months, 98.1% (52/53 women), 1.9% (1/53 women). Seventeen of 430 patients (4.0%) had vaginal mesh extrusion. Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores significantly improved (P < .0001). Conclusion: Anterior intravaginal slingplasty and posterior intravaginal slingplasty are safe and effective when performed with other procedures. For anterior intravaginal slingplasty, the rates of perforation and retention are low, but early extrusions are seen. Patients showed improvements in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, regardless of extrusion.
KW - Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ)
KW - intravaginal slingplasty tunneller
KW - mesh extrusion
KW - urodynamic stress incontinence
KW - vaginal vault prolapse
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34347245910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.056
DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.056
M3 - Article
C2 - 17618778
AN - SCOPUS:34347245910
SN - 0002-9378
VL - 197
SP - 104.e1-104.e8
JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
IS - 1
ER -