Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, PO Box 2168, 3103, Tønsberg, Norway.
Department of Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Apr;31(4):711-716. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04080-y. Epub 2019 Aug 13.
Over 50 different types of midurethral slings have been marketed. They have generally been considered comparable in performance. Many studies have compared retropubic with obturator slings, but few have compared different makes of retropubic slings with each other. We have compared the performance of retropubic slings using data from the Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry.
From June 2015 through 2017, 2843 women underwent a retropubic sling procedure, with 6-12-month follow-up data available for 2612 (92%). Results for six different types of slings used in this time period are presented: TVT Exact, TVT Classic, Advantage, Advantage Fit, TVT A.M.I. and RetroArc. The TVT Exact was the most prevalent sling, and the outcomes were compared with this sling as reference using chi-square and Dunnet's tests with significance at 0.05.
There were only small differences among the four slings, TVT Exact, TVT Classic, Advantage and Advantage Fit, with subjective cure rates from 77.7 to 81.9% and objective cure rates from 90.8 to 96.6%. The TVT A.M.I. sling had a high cure rate but significantly fewer satisfied patients and less improvement in urgency bother. The Retro Arc's results were clearly inferior. There was little difference in terms of obstruction or de novo urgency incontinence among the six slings. Most complication rates were not statistically different.
At 6-12-month follow-up there was no significant difference in clinical results between the TVT Exact, TVT Classic, Advantage and Advantage Fit slings, while RetroArc and to some extent TVT A.M.I. slings underperformed.
已经有超过 50 种不同类型的中尿道吊带被推向市场。它们通常被认为在性能上是相当的。许多研究比较了经耻骨后与经闭孔吊带,但很少有研究比较不同类型的经耻骨后吊带。我们使用挪威女性尿失禁登记处的数据来比较经耻骨后吊带的性能。
从 2015 年 6 月到 2017 年,2843 名女性接受了经耻骨后吊带手术,其中 2612 名(92%)有 6-12 个月的随访数据。本研究介绍了在此期间使用的六种不同类型吊带的结果:TVT Exact、TVT Classic、Advantage、Advantage Fit、TVT A.M.I. 和 RetroArc。TVT Exact 是最常见的吊带,使用卡方检验和 Dunnet 检验将结果与这种吊带进行比较,显著性水平为 0.05。
只有四种吊带(TVT Exact、TVT Classic、Advantage 和 Advantage Fit)之间存在很小的差异,主观治愈率为 77.7%至 81.9%,客观治愈率为 90.8%至 96.6%。TVT A.M.I. 吊带的治愈率很高,但满意的患者明显较少,急迫症状改善较少。RetroArc 的结果明显较差。在六种吊带中,梗阻或新发急迫性尿失禁的发生率差异不大。大多数并发症发生率没有统计学差异。
在 6-12 个月的随访中,TVT Exact、TVT Classic、Advantage 和 Advantage Fit 吊带的临床结果没有显著差异,而 RetroArc 和在一定程度上 TVT A.M.I. 吊带的表现不如其他几种吊带。