Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2016
Prospective randomized comparison of the transobturator mid-urethral sling with the single-incision sling among women with stress urinary incontinence: 1-year follow-up study.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Surgical Treatment for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2018Pooled it
- Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of an innovative single-incision sling (SIS) with the inside-out transobturator sling (TOT) in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
methodsA prospective randomized trial was performed in a tertiary referral urogynecology center from January 2012 to December 2013. The study included women with pure urodynamic SUI. Patients were randomized to either the SIS or the TOT anti-incontinence procedure. Surgery duration, blood loss, and groin pain scores were recorded for each patient. The 1-year follow-up visit included objective and subjective cure parameters, postoperative de novo urgency, complications, and the impact on the patient's life quality.
resultsOf 285 patients assessed for eligibility, a total of 93 patients (32.6 %) were randomized into TOT (n = 48) and SIS groups (n = 45). There were no significant differences in either operating time or blood loss. A statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in pain scores three (5.6 ± 1.8 vs 3.1 ± 2.1, p < 0.001) and 12 h postoperatively (3.8 ± 1.7 vs 2.1 ± 1.7, p < 0.001). After 1 year, there were no significant differences between the TOT and SIS groups in objective cure rates (87.0 % vs 90.9 %; p = 0.399) or patient-reported success rates (91.3 % vs 93.2 %; p = 0.999). Incidence of postoperative de novo urgency did not differ between TOT and SIS patients. Both groups registered a significant improvement in quality of life.
conclusionsThe Ophira SIS procedure has 1-year success rates comparable to standard TOT with significantly less groin pain in the early postoperative period. Both methods were safe and effective in terms of postoperative urgency and life quality improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26630947What 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.