ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2014
Different sling procedures for stress urinary incontinence: a lesson from 453 patients.
Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new treatment of female stress urinary incontinence with vaginal antetheca-retropubic space mesh repair surgery: a clinical trial.World journal of urology · 2018Trial
- Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in women with stress urinary incontinence treated with suburethral slings: a randomised trial.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several midurethral sling (MUS) procedures, such as tension-free vaginal tape (TVT), TVT obturator (TVT-O), tension-free vaginal tape SECUR (TVT-S), and pubovaginal sling (PVS), have been used for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI); however, which method is best for a particular patient group is not known. This study aimed to identify the best rationale for choosing the optimal MUS procedure for each patient. In total, 453 consecutive female patients with SUI who were treated with MUSs in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from September 2003 to September 2011 were enrolled in this study. All the patients underwent comprehensive pre-, intra-, and postoperative evaluations, including collection of demographic information, pelvic examination, and urodynamic testing, and operation-related complications were recorded. The Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire was also completed. Under local or general anesthesia, 105 cases were treated with TVT, 243 with TVT-O, 90 with TVT-S, and 15 with PVS. Patients with different profiles in terms of age, symptom duration, concomitant procedures, urodynamic parameters, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification score were treated successfully; the body mass index did not differ significantly among the various treatment options. The cure and improvement rates were similar among the treatment groups: 97.14% (102/105) in TVT, 100% (243/243) in TVT-O, 98.89% (89/90) in TVT-S, and 100% (15/15) in PVS. Only minor complications were experienced by the patients. In conclusion, each MUS procedure was observed to be safe and effective in different subpopulations of patients, and the results suggest that appropriate patient selection is crucial for the success of each MUS procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.