Articles

Platinum Priority – Female Urology – Incontinence
Editorial by Elisabetta Costantini and Massimo Lazzeri on pp. 980–982 of this issueEditorial by Elisabetta Costantini and Massimo Lazzeri on pp. 980–982 of this issue

A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparative Study Between the U- and H-type Methods of the TVT SECUR Procedure for the Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Follow-Up

By: Kyu-Sung Leea, Young-Suk Leea, Ju Tae Seob, Yong Gil Nac, Myung-Soo Chood, Joon Chul Kime, Jun Hyoung Seof, Jong Min Yoong, Jeong Gu Leeh, Duk Yoon Kimi, Eun Sang Yooj, Kweon Sik Mink, Jae Yup Hongl and Jeong Zoo Leem lowast

European Urology, Volume 57 Issue 1, June 2010, Pages 973-979

Published online: 01 June 2010

Keywords: Female stress urinary incontinence, Randomized comparative study, TVT SECUR

Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF (324 KB)

Abstract

Background

No studies have been published comparing the U- and H-type methods of the TVT SECUR (TVT-S) procedure.

Objective

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of the two types of TVT-S for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Design, setting, and participants

Women with urodynamic SUI were enrolled in this 12-mo multicenter randomized study.

Intervention

Subjects were randomly allocated to either the U- or H-type method of TVT-S.

Measurements

Pre- and postoperative evaluations included a standing stress test, the Sandvik questionnaire, the Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) questionnaire, and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS). Patients’ satisfaction and complications were evaluated. Objective and subjective cures were defined as no leakage on the stress test and responses on the Sandvik questionnaire, respectively. We compared the surgical outcomes between the two methods.

Results and limitations

Of 285 women, 144 had the U-type method and 141 had the H-type method. Objective cure rates were 87.5% for the U-type method and 80.1% for the H-type method (p=0.091). Subjective cure rates were 77.1% for the U-type method and 75.7% for the H-type method (p=0.786). Improvement in I-QOL and domain scores of the ICIQ-FLUTS (filling and incontinence sum, QOL score), and patients’ satisfaction favored the U-type method. There were three cases of intraoperative vaginal wall perforation, one case of increased bleeding, and three cases of temporary postoperative retention. A power calculation was not performed, and some baseline characteristics were not balanced between the two methods.

Conclusions

Both methods of TVT-S provided comparable cure rates for female SUI. However, QOL and treatment satisfaction favored the U-type method.

Trial registration

The protocol of this study was not registered.

Take Home Message

The U- and H-type methods of the TVT SECUR procedure provided comparable cure rates for female stress urinary incontinence. The U-type method showed more favorable results than the H-type method regarding quality of life and treatment satisfaction.

Keywords: Female stress urinary incontinence, Randomized comparative study, TVT SECUR.

1. Introduction

Since tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) was introduced as a minimally invasive surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), there has been an effort to develop a safer and less invasive procedure to avoid blind passage of the needle through the retropubic region. With this aim in mind, Delorme [1] described the transobturator tape (TOT). In a recent review [2] that compared TVT and TOT, the occurrence of bladder perforation, pelvic hematoma, and storage symptoms was significantly less common in patients treated with TOT. However, TOT carried risks of groin pain or neurovascular injury in the obturator region [2]. Single-incision midurethral slings (MUS), the TVT SECUR (TVT-S; Gynecare, Menlo Park, CA, USA), the MiniArc (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA), and the Mini-Sling (ProSurg, San Jose, CA, USA), were developed to minimize those risks by the short course of the devices. The TVT-S consists of PROLENE mesh, 8cm in length, with ends coated with an absorbable fleece material that provides fixation. The system can be fixed in a U-shaped (U) position into the connective tissue of the urogenital diaphragm or in a hammock (H) position into the obturator internus muscle.

To date, no study has been published that compares the U- and H-type methods. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and safety of the two methods of the TVT-S in women with SUI.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Design

This 12-mo multicenter randomized trial involved 13 experienced surgeons (performed >15 cases of TVT-S before this trial) at 13 hospitals. Participants received detailed information about the study procedure and provided written consent before study entry. This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Participants

Women ≥18 yr of age with urodynamic SUI or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) with a predominance of SUI were eligible for inclusion. Women who had pelvic organ prolapse (POP) stage ≥2 on the POP quantification system [3], the intention to have more children, or a neurologic disease were excluded.

2.3. Procedure

Consenting patients were randomly allocated to either the U- or H-type method in the operating room. Under local (and/or light sedation), spinal, or general anesthesia, surgery was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the U-type method, the inserters were introduced into the paraurethral space orienting to 45° from the sagittal midline and advanced upward until the back edge of the pubic bone was reached, creating a U-shaped sling (Fig. 1a). For the H-type method, the inserters were introduced into the obturator internus muscle parallel to the floor creating a hammock-shaped sling (Fig. 1b). An important technique was to remove the handle gently while carefully inserting the device into the connective tissue, so the ideal tension would be applied to the mesh without allowing it to loosen. Cystoscopic examination was performed in the U-type method. A urethral catheter was introduced only in the case of postoperative retention.

gr1

Fig. 1 (a) U-shaped position and (b) hammock (H) position of the TVT SECUR system.

2.4. Assessments

Baseline evaluation included each participant's demographics, medical and surgical histories, obstetric and gynecologic histories, pelvic examination, and urodynamic study. The urodynamic study was performed according to the International Continence Society standards [4]. At baseline and postoperative 12-mo visits, patients were assayed using the standing stress test, the Sandvik questionnaire [5], the Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) questionnaire [6], the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) [7], the Incontinence Visual Analogue Scale (I-VAS; 0, no incontinence; 10, extremely severe incontinence) [8], and a 3-d voiding diary. One week after surgery, uroflowmetry and postvoid residuals were measured. Patients described urgency sensation associated with each micturition in the voiding diary using the Urinary Sensation Scale (USS; 1, no urgency, to 5, urgency incontinence) [9]. Urgency episodes were defined as the number of micturition-associated urgencies with a USS score ≥3. We asked the patients to describe (1) if the surgery was beneficial, (2) if the surgery was satisfactory, (3) whether they would undergo the surgery again if necessary, and (4) whether they would recommend the surgery to others. Preoperative patients’ most important goal for the surgery were collated, and postoperative goal achievement (GA) was assessed using a Likert scale (0, not at all achieved; 5, completely achieved). Successful achievement was defined as a score of 4 or 5.

Operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL; calculation, total volume to volume of prefilled water in the suction chamber), immediate postoperative pain VAS (0, no pain; 10, excruciating pain), and perioperative complications were evaluated.

The primary end point was the cure rate at the 12-mo postoperative visit. Objective and subjective cures were defined as no leakage on the stress test and responses on the Sandvik questionnaire, respectively.

2.5. Statistical methods

The center applied a stratified permuted block randomization method. Patients who had a standing stress test at baseline and the 12-mo postoperative visits consisted of the efficacy set. The safety set consisted of all participants who received the study procedure. We compared the continuous or ordinal variable between the two methods using the student t test or Mann-Whitney U test according to the normality of distribution. Comparison of nominal variables was performed using the chi-square test. Postoperative change was analyzed using the paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test. The Bonferroni correction was applied where necessary. SAS software v.9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA) was used, and a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

Of the 330 women enrolled, 285 (144 in the U group and 141 in the H group) were included in the efficacy analysis (Fig. 2). Table 1 shows the participants’ demographics. Age, menopausal status, percentage of women with detrusor overactivity (DO), and number of urgency episodes were not balanced between the groups. The mean duration of the surgery was 17.0±9.7min, and the mean duration of hospital stay was 1.0±1.2 d without a significant difference between the groups. The mean EBL was 44.0±80.3ml (U, 41.8±38.7 vs H, 39.0±64.4; p=0.674). The mean pain VAS was 2.4±2.0 (U, 2.5±2.1 vs H, 2.3±1.8; p=0.530).

gr2

Fig. 2 Participation diagram.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics

Variables Total (n=285) U type (n=144) H type (n=141) p value
Age, yr, mean±SD 54.2±9.1 (32–85) 55.4±9.1 (35–79) 53.0±8.9 (32–85) 0.0136*
BMI, mean±SD 24.0±3.0 (17.3–39.1) 24.1±3.1 (18.2–39.1) 23.9±2.9 (17.3–31.7) 0.9384*
Parity, mean±SD 2.6±1.1 (0–9) 2.7±1.2 (0–6) 2.6±1.1 (1–9) 0.9900*
Menopausal status 65.1% 72.1% 57.8% 0.0125
Symptom duration, yr, mean±SD 5.8±5.3 (0.3–33.0) 6.0±5.6 (0.5–33.0) 5.6±5.0 (0.3–30.0) 0.9801*
Stamey symptom grade 0.6515*
1 34.3% 36.1% 32.2%
2 53.0% 50.8% 55.4%
3 12.7% 13.1% 12.4%
Urodynamic parameters
VLPP, cm H2O, mean±SD 89.6±25.3 (13–170) 89.8±24.5 (15–170) 89.4±26.2 (13–165) 1.0000*,§
ISD, VLPP ≤60cm H2O 11.4% 9.8% 13.0% 0.7815,§
MUCP, cm H2O, mean±SD 46.5±21.2 (11–117) 46.3±21.5 (11–117) 46.8±20.9 (11–114) 0.7821*
DO 13.5% 18.2% 8.6% 0.0189
Mixed incontinence 38.4% 42.5% 34.3% 0.2143
Urethral hypermobility 61.2% 59.2% 63.3% 0.5068
Voiding diary parameters
Frequency/24h, mean±SD 9.0±2.8 (4–22) 9.0±2.6 (4–22) 9.1±2.9 (4–22) 1.0000*
Nocturia/24h, mean±SD 1.2±1.1 (0–6) 1.3±1.2 (0–6) 1.2±1.1 (0–5) 0.8327*
Urgency episode/24h, mean±SD 2.4±3.2 (0–22) 2.9±3.4 (0–13) 1.9±3.0 (0–22) 0.0211*

* Mann-Whitney U test.

Chi-square test.

§ Bonferroni correction.

BMI=body mass index; DO=detrusor overactivity; ISD=intrinsic sphincter deficiency; MUCP=maximum urethral closing pressure; VLPP=Valsalva leak point pressure.

3.1. Efficacy

The overall objective cure rate was 83.9% (239 of 285); 87.5% (126 of 144) for U versus 80.1% (113 of 141) for H (p=0.091). The overall subjective cure rate was 76.4% (217 of 284); 77.1% (111 of 144) for U versus 75.7% (106 of 140) for H (p=0.786). Table 2 summarizes the postoperative changes in the outcome measures and the comparison of the changes between groups. The improvement in all domain scores of the I-QOL questionnaire was greater in the U group. Filling, incontinence, and QOL domain scores of the ICIQ-FLUTS were significantly further improved in the U group. There was no difference in the improvement in voiding diary parameters and I-VAS between groups. Women in the U group reported higher rates of satisfaction, willingness to have surgery again, and willingness to recommend the surgery (Fig. 3). Of the 108 women who had MUI at baseline, 41.5% (U, 45.8% vs H, 37.0%; p=0.383) reported that their urgency incontinence was cured after surgery.

Table 2 Comparisons of the changes in outcome measures between the U- and H-type methods

Variables Total U-type method H-type method p value
Preop Postop Preop Postop Preop Postop U vs H
I-QOL
Avo/Lim 41.8 71.3* 41.8 75.3* 41.8 67.2* 0.022
Psychosocial impacts 43.3 71.9* 43.4 76.0* 43.2 67.7* 0.021
Social embarrassment 34.7 74.9* 33.9 79.6* 35.5 70.0* 0.015
ICIQ-FLUTS
Filling sum 6.18 3.60* 6.20 3.18* 6.15 4.04* 0.022
Voiding sum 2.58 1.74* 2.91 1.86* 2.23 1.61* 0.276
Incontinence sum 8.55 3.46* 8.76 2.82* 8.33 4.12* 0.006
Sexual function score 1.74 0.87* 1.81 0.81* 1.66 0.94* 0.421
QOL score 7.77 3.46* 7.90 2.80* 7.64 4.15* 0.007
I-VAS 6.82 1.36* 6.90 1.03* 6.75 1.69* 0.056
Voiding diary parameters
Micturition/24h 9.03 7.97* 8.99 8.02* 9.07 7.92* 0.218
Nocturia 1.25 0.68* 1.28 0.68* 1.23 0.69* 0.615
Urgency episode/24h 2.37 1.22* 2.88 1.40* 1.86 1.04* 0.329
Uroflowmetry parameters
Qmax 25.7 24.3 24.8 23.7 26.6 25.0 0.576
PVR 18.0 20.1 18.2 20.6 17.8 19.6 0.306

* p<0.05; comparison between pre- and postoperative, Wilcoxon signed rank test, or paired t test with Bonferroni correction.

Comparison between U- and H-type methods, Mann-Whitney U test, or t test.

Avo/Lim=avoidance and limiting behavior; ICIQ-FLUTS=International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; I-QOL=Incontinence Quality Of Life questionnaire; PVR=postvoid residuals; Qmax=maximum flow rate; QOL=quality of life; I-VAS=Incontinence Visual Analogue Scale.

gr3

Fig. 3 Patients’ 12-mo perception of treatment benefit, satisfaction, willingness to have retreatment, and willingness to recommend.

Patients’ goals for the surgery consisted of five categories, and most were related to symptom relief (Table 3). After surgery, the median point of GA was 4.5 (U, 4.5 vs H, 4.0; p=0.123). And 81% (U, 83.8% vs H, 78.2%; p=0.546) reported that their goal was achieved successfully.

Table 3 Patient-reported goals and goal achievement (n=220)

Category n (%) PGA (median, quartile)
Symptom relief 152 (69.1%) 4.5 (4, 5)
Stress incontinence 140 (63.6%) 4.5 (4, 5)
Frequency 6 (2.7%) 4.5 (4, 4.5)
Urgency 2 (0.9%) 4 (4, 4)
Nocturia 1 (0.5%) 0.5
Weak stream 1 (0.5%) 2.5
Pelvic discomfort 2 (0.9%) 3.25 (2, 4.5)
Activity/exercise 47 (21.4%) 4.8 (4, 5)
Quality of life 12 (5%) 5 (4, 5)
Coping behavior 8 (4%) 4.7 (2.5, 5)
Sexual function 1 (0.5%) 5

PGA=Patient-reported goal achievement.

3.2. Complications and additional procedures

Three cases of lateral vaginal wall perforation occurred during the H-type method. All cases were repaired immediately, and there were no wound complications.

A woman in the H group received 2 pt of blood due to postoperative dizziness and intraoperative bleeding (500ml). After transfusion, her symptom was relieved, and no hematoma or intravaginal bleeding was found on physical and pelvic examination. Postoperative retention occurred in two U-group and three H-group cases. All of them recovered their normal voiding after 1 or 2 d with an indwelling urethral catheter.

De novo urgency was reported in 7.3% (U, 7.0% vs H, 7.6%; p=0.858), and none of them reported de novo urgency incontinence. No women complained of postoperative dyspareunia.

Eleven women, six U-group and five H-group cases, received the tape plication procedure for persistent or recurrent SUI. Of those, two U-group cases had an additional H-type method of TVT-S, and three U-group cases had MUS (two TVT and one TOT). Mesh erosion and bladder or urethral injuries were not reported during the study period.

4. Discussion

This is the first randomized study comparing the U- and H-type methods of the TVT-S. We found that cure rate was comparable between the two methods 12 mo after surgery. However, outcomes regarding QOL and satisfaction were in favor of the U-type method. We believe that the higher cure rate of the U-type method, even though it did not reach statistical significance, would affect the results.

Reported cure rates of TVT-S are similar to ours, ranging from 78% to 100% [10], [11], and [12]. Meschia et al [11] in particular reported 79% and 77% success rates in the H- and U-type methods, respectively. Another single-incision sling, MiniArc, was reported as having a 69–91% cure rate [13] and [14]. Our result is also comparable with those of conventional MUS whose 1-yr cure rate is 85–93% [15] and [16].

Our study population showed heterogeneous characteristics in terms of the MUI, intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD), and urethral hypermobility (UH). Moreover, there were unbalanced baseline characteristics regarding age, menopausal status, DO, and number of urgency episodes. Therefore, we conducted subanalysis comparing cure rates according to those variables and found that they did not change the cure rates significantly. However, according to the subanalysis by the presence of UH, the subjective cure rate was lower in the H group among women with UH (U, 86.5% vs H, 72.4%; p=0.033). This result was different from the study conducted by Martan et al [17], which reported that in the group of women with larger UH it might be better to place the tape in the H position. The other results were also inconsistent with existing data in which MUI, ISD, and DO were reported as negative impact factors [18] and [19]. Those disagreements might be due to the small or unbalanced sample size, especially in terms of DO. Also, mild symptom of urgency incontinence might be responsible for the similar cure rate between women with pure SUI and MUI because we included only the women with MUI with a predominance of SUI.

We explored the goal and GA of the woman with SUI. Patient-reported GA has been studied as the “fourth dimension” assessment in the study of pelvic floor disorders [20]. A recent study demonstrated a strong correlation of GA with pelvic floor disorder–specific QOL and satisfaction [21]. High GA in our study might result from homogeneous and realistic goals for SUI (Table 3).

Studies comparing TVT and TOT report comparable efficacy. Our study also shows similar cure rates between the U- and H-type methods. However, there is controversy in the safety profile. Porena et al [22] reported that TOT was as safe as TVT. In contrast, Zullo et al [23] reported that TOT had a lower complication rate. We had more complications in the H group. Three cases of vaginal wall perforation, one case of increased bleeding, and three cases of retention were reported in the H group. In comparison, two cases of retention were reported in the U group. Neuman [10] reported a 4% incidence of vaginal perforation in the first 100 cases. The TVT-S requires a wider tunnel to prevent dragging of the vaginal submucosal connective tissue when placing the end of the device into the fibrous tissue of the internal obturator muscle. Otherwise, the needle can perforate the vaginal wall. Regarding the bleeding, Masata et al [24] reported a case of severe bleeding from the internal obturator muscle following the H-type method. The authors suggested the scalpel-shaped tip of the inserter and the insertion technique as the possible reasons. Also, they suggested that to prevent the injury of the muscle, it is necessary not to shake or rotate the inserter during its removal [24]. Those complications associated with the H-type method can be dealt with early in the learning curve. Therefore, a surgeon must receive adequate training before attempting this surgery.

De novo urgency is another controversial issue. Several studies reported no difference in the incidence of de novo urgency between TVT and TOT [25] and [26]. In contrast, Deval et al [27] and Krauth et al [28] reported a lower rate of de novo urgency after TOT, suggesting the route of approach as a possible reason. However, David-Montefiore et al [29] proposed the use of nonelastic slings rather than the route of procedure as the main reason. Our study found no difference in the incidence of de novo urgency and the changes in urgency episode between methods (Table 2).

Although some unbalanced baseline characteristics were prognostic factors and appeared to have a negative effect on the U group, the U-type method showed superior outcomes. If random allocation had been balanced, and clinically significant effect size and power had been calculated, the difference in the cure rate between methods would have had statistical significance. Another limitation is that we cannot be sure of the final position of the tape. According to the published data on this issue, TOT was at a less acute angle and localized to a more distal part of the urethra than the retropubic tape, resulting in a lower rate of urethral kinking and less urethral compression [30]. A study using perineal ultrasonography could provide some clues on this subject in the TVT-S procedure.

5. Conclusions

Both the U- and H-type methods of the TVT-S provide a comparable cure rate for female SUI. However, the U-type method shows more favorable results in terms of QOL and treatment satisfaction.

Author contributions: Jeong Zoo Lee had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Kyu-Sung Lee, Ju Tae Seo, Na, Choo, Joon Chul Kim, Jun Hyoung Seo, Yoon, Jeong Gu Lee, Duk Yoon Kim, Yoo, Min, Hong, Jeong Zoo Lee.

Acquisition of data: Kyu-Sung Lee, Ju Tae Seo, Na, Choo, Joon Chul Kim, Jun Hyoung Seo, Yoon, Jeong Gu Lee, Duk Yoon Kim, Yoo, Min, Hong, Jeong Zoo Lee.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Kyu-Sung Lee, Young-Suk Lee, Jeong Zoo Lee.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kyu-Sung Lee, Young-Suk Lee.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Jeong Zoo Lee.

Statistical analysis: Kyu-Sung Lee, Young-Suk Lee.

Obtaining funding: None.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Kyu-Sung Lee.

Supervision: Jeong Zoo Lee.

Other (specify): None.

Financial disclosures: I certify that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/ affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: None.

References

  • [1] E. Delorme. Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women [in French]. Prog Urol. 2001;11:1306-1313
  • [2] G. Novara, A. Galfano, R. Boscolo-Berto, et al. Complication rates of tension-free midurethral slings in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing tension-free midurethral tapes to other surgical procedures and different devices. Eur Urol. 2008;53:288-309 Abstract, Full-text, PDF, Crossref.
  • [3] R.C. Bump, A. Mattiasson, K. Bo, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10-17 Crossref.
  • [4] W. Schafer, P. Abrams, L. Liao, et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:261-274 Crossref.
  • [5] H. Sandvik, S. Hunskaar, A. Seim, R. Hermstad, A. Vanvik, H. Bratt. Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993;47:497-499 Crossref.
  • [6] S.J. Oh, M.L. Martin, B.L. Ting, et al. Translation and linguistic validation of Korean version of the Incontinence Quality Of Life (I-QoL) instrument. J Korean Continence Soc. 2002;6:10-23
  • [7] S. Jackson, J. Donovan, S. Brookes, S. Eckford, L. Swithinbank, P. Abrams. The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms questionnaire: development and psychometric testing. Br J Urol. 1996;77:805-812
  • [8] D.E. Parkin, J.A. Davis. Use of a visual analogue scale in the diagnosis of urinary incontinence. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293:365-366 Crossref.
  • [9] K.S. Coyne, A. Tubaro, L. Brubaker, T. Bavendam. Development and validation of patient-reported outcomes measures for overactive bladder: a review of concepts. Urology. 2006;68:9-16 Crossref.
  • [10] M. Neuman. Perioperative complications and early follow-up with 100 TVT-SECUR procedures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:480-484 Crossref.
  • [11] M. Meschia, P. Barbacini, V. Ambrogi, P. Pifarotti, L. Ricci, L. Spreafico. TVT-Secur: a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of primary stress urinary incontinence. One year data from a multi-centre prospective trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:313-317
  • [12] E. Tartaglia, G. Delicato, G. Baffigo, et al. Third-generation tension-free tape for female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2009;182:612-615 Crossref.
  • [13] A. Gauruder-Burmester, G. Popken. The MiniArc sling system in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35:334-341 author reply 341–3
  • [14] R.D. Moore, G.K. Mitchell, J.R. Miklos. Single-center retrospective study of the technique, safety, and 12-month efficacy of the MiniArc single-incision sling: a new minimally invasive procedure for treatment of female SUI. Surg Technol Int. 2009;18:175-181
  • [15] K.S. Lee, M.S. Choo, Y.S. Lee, et al. Prospective comparison of the ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’ transobturator-tape procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:577-582 Crossref.
  • [16] K.-S. Lee, M.-S. Choo, C.K. Doo, et al. The long term (5-years) objective TVT success rate does not depend on predictive factors at multivariate analysis: a multicentre retrospective study. Eur Urol. 2008;53:176-183 Abstract, Full-text, PDF, Crossref.
  • [17] A. Martan, J. Masata, K. Svabik. TVT SECUR system—tension-free support of the urethra in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence—technique and initial experience [in Czech]. Ceska Gynekol. 2007;72:42-49
  • [18] K. Stav, P.L. Dwyer, A. Rosamilia, et al. Repeat synthetic mid urethral sling procedure for women with recurrent stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2010;183:241-246 Crossref.
  • [19] S. Kulseng-Hanssen, H. Husby, H.A. Schiotz. Follow-up of TVT operations in 1,113 women with mixed urinary incontinence at 7 and 38 months. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:391-396 Crossref.
  • [20] L. Lowenstein, M.P. FitzGerald, K. Kenton, et al. Patient-selected goals: the fourth dimension in assessment of pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:81-84
  • [21] V.E. Bovbjerg, E.R. Trowbridge, M.D. Barber, T.E. Martirosian, W.D. Steers, K.L. Hullfish. Patient-centered treatment goals for pelvic floor disorders: association with quality-of-life and patient satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:568.e1-568.e6 Crossref.
  • [22] M. Porena, E. Costantini, B. Frea, et al. Tension-free vaginal tape versus transobturator tape as surgery for stress urinary incontinence: results of a multicentre randomised trial. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1481-1491 Abstract, Full-text, PDF, Crossref.
  • [23] M.A. Zullo, F. Plotti, M. Calcagno, et al. One-year follow-up of tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and trans-obturator suburethral tape from inside to outside (TVT-O) for surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a prospective randomised trial. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1376-1384 discussion 1383–4 Abstract, Full-text, PDF, Crossref.
  • [24] J. Masata, A. Martan, K. Svabik. Severe bleeding from internal obturator muscle following tension-free vaginal tape Secur hammock approach procedure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:1581-1583 Crossref.
  • [25] P.M. Latthe, R. Foon, P. Toozs-Hobson. Transobturator and retropubic tape procedures in stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications. BJOG. 2007;114:522-531 Crossref.
  • [26] C.Y. Long, C.S. Hsu, M.P. Wu, C.M. Liu, T.N. Wang, E.M. Tsai. Comparison of tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator tape procedure for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:342-347 Crossref.
  • [27] B. Deval, J. Ferchaux, R. Berry, et al. Objective and subjective cure rates after trans-obturator tape (OBTAPE®) treatment of female urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2006;49:373-377 Abstract, Full-text, PDF, Crossref.
  • [28] J.S. Krauth, H. Rasoamiaramanana, H. Barletta, et al. Sub-urethral tape treatment of female urinary incontinence—morbidity assessment of the trans-obturator route and a new tape (I-STOP®): a multi-centre experiment involving 604 cases. Eur Urol. 2005;47:102-107 discussion 106–7 Crossref.
  • [29] E. David-Montefiore, J.-L. Frobert, M. Grisard-Anaf, et al. Peri-operative complications and pain after the suburethral sling procedure for urinary stress incontinence: a French prospective randomised multicentre study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes. Eur Urol. 2006;49:133-138 Abstract, Full-text, PDF, Crossref.
  • [30] C.Y. Long, C.S. Hsu, C.M. Liu, T.S. Lo, C.L. Wang, E.M. Tsai. Clinical and ultrasonographic comparison of tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator tape procedure for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:425-430 Crossref.

Footnotes

a Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

b Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

c Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

d Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

e Holy Family Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

f CHA Medical Center, Pochon Cha University College of Medicine, Pochon, Korea

g Daehang Hospital, Seoul, Korea

h Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

i Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu Catholic University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

j Kyungpook National University Hospital, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

k Paik Institute of Clinical Research, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

l Bundang Cha Hospital, Pochon CHA University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

m Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

lowast Corresponding author. 305 Gudeok-Ro, Seo-Gu, Pusan 602-739, South Korea. Tel. +82 51 240 7350; Fax: +82 51 255 7133.

Place a comment

Your comment *

max length: 5000