ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Midurethral slings versus the standard pubovaginal slings for women with neurogenic stress urinary incontinence.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic mid-urethral slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- Current Surgical Treatment for Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction in Patients with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Management of stress urinary incontinence in female patients with spinal cord injury by autologous fascial sling: time for a revival?Spinal cord series and cases · 2022Article
- Autologous fascial slings for stress urinary incontinence in patients with neuropathic bladder.Spinal cord series and cases · 2022Article
- Neurogenic bladder - concepts and treatment recommendations.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPreliminary reports show promising data on tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) in women with lower motor neuron lesion (LMNL) presenting with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We compared efficacy and safety of TVT to pubovaginal sling (PVS) in treating SUI in women with LMNL.
methodsThis was a pilot, nonrandomized clinical trial evaluating women with SUI associated with pathology at or below S2 spinal segment. Failure was defined as leakage of urine during cough test at 250 ml bladder volume. Primary outcome was time to treatment failure based on positive cough stress test. Other outcomes were Urogenital Distress Inventory Short Form-6 (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form-7 (IIQ-7) and urodynamics. Regression models were used to adjust for confounders.
resultsThe study evaluated 40 women: 20 TVT and 20 PVS, and cure rates were 80 and 85 %, respectively. Time to treatment failure in the TVT group was comparable with the PVS group, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2.90 [95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.61-15.42, P = 0.154]. After adjusting for confounders, adjusted HR for treatment failure was 1.04 (95 % CI, 0.12-8.66, likelihood ratio chi-square P = 0.973). Both groups showed significant reductions in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 scores after surgery. One patient had mesh erosion in the TVT group.
conclusionsTVT is feasible, effective and safe for women with LMNL presenting with SUI, with comparable treatment outcomes to PVS. TVT might be of benefit to women who do not use clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) at baseline.
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.