Rapp David E, Kobashi Kathleen C
Continence Center at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98111, USA.
J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):998-1002. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.043. Epub 2008 Jul 17.
The assessment of incontinence therapies is complicated by the diverse outcomes instruments and definitions of success used by investigators. We defined this effect by using varied definitions of success to perform outcomes analysis following sling placement.
A retrospective review of patients undergoing SPARC (314) and autologous rectus pubovaginal sling (127) placement was performed, with 204 patients with the SPARC and 67 with pubovaginal sling completing questionnaire surveillance with the minimum 12-month followup. Outcomes were assessed using a questionnaire comprising validated incontinence questionnaires (Urogenital Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire) and additional items addressing satisfaction. Success rates were compared using alternate definitions of success across all outcomes measures (eg dry rate, pad rate, percent improvement, degree of satisfaction).
Wide variations in outcomes were seen depending on the definition used for success (SPARC success range 33% to 87%, pubovaginal sling 40% to 79%). Total absence of leakage was the strictest definition of success while continued use of 1 to 3 liners was associated with the highest success rates. In addition, 74% of patients with SPARC placement and 66% with the pubovaginal sling reported willingness to undergo sling surgery again despite the treatment failing to meet the criteria for success under multiple definitions. Finally, the individual sling type (SPARC vs pubovaginal) associated with the superior success rate varied with the definition of success. However, these differences failed to achieve statistical significance.
Our data suggest that success rates following sling placement are significantly affected by the definition of success. Investigation to define standardized outcomes measures following incontinence surgery is of great importance to the urological community.
由于研究人员使用的结果评估工具和成功定义各不相同,尿失禁治疗的评估变得复杂。我们通过使用不同的成功定义对吊带置入术后进行结果分析来界定这种影响。
对接受SPARC(314例)和自体腹直肌耻骨后阴道吊带术(127例)的患者进行回顾性研究,其中204例接受SPARC手术和67例接受耻骨后阴道吊带术的患者完成了至少12个月随访的问卷调查监测。使用包含经过验证的尿失禁问卷(泌尿生殖系统困扰量表和尿失禁影响问卷)以及其他关于满意度项目的问卷来评估结果。在所有结果指标(如干爽率、护垫使用率、改善百分比、满意度)中,使用不同的成功定义比较成功率。
根据成功的定义不同,结果差异很大(SPARC成功率范围为33%至87%,耻骨后阴道吊带术为40%至79%)。完全无漏尿是最严格的成功定义,而继续使用1至3片护垫与最高成功率相关。此外,74%接受SPARC手术的患者和66%接受耻骨后阴道吊带术的患者表示,尽管治疗未达到多种定义下的成功标准,但仍愿意再次接受吊带手术。最后,与较高成功率相关的个体吊带类型(SPARC与耻骨后阴道吊带术)因成功定义而异。然而,这些差异未达到统计学意义。
我们的数据表明,吊带置入术后的成功率受成功定义的显著影响。确定尿失禁手术后标准化结果指标的研究对泌尿外科领域非常重要。