ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Functional outcomes and quality of life after transobturatory slings: hand - made vs. commercial slings.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of synthetic slings in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: Number 2 - 2025.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Article
- Urethrovaginal fistula repair with or without concurrent fascial sling placement: A retrospective review.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Incontinence outcomes in women undergoing retropubic mid-urethral sling: a retrospective cohort study comparing Safyre™ and handmade sling.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical correction is the most efficient treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and transobturator sling (TO) has optimal results. The high cost of commercially available sling kits makes it difficult the access in most Brazilian public health services. Hand-made polypropylene slings, on the other hand, have been previously reported. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of commercial vs. hand-made polypropylene mesh slings. Data from 57 women who underwent consecutive TO sling surgery to treat SUI were pros-pectively collected between 2012 and 2014, and divided in two groups for further comparison. In Group-1, 31 women underwent surgery with commercial slings. In Group-2, 26 women underwent hand-made polypropylene slings. Women were compared according to epidemiological data, perioperative evaluation, quality of life, urodynamic study, cure and complication rates. Results were objectively (stress test with Valsalva maneuver, with at least 200mL vesical repletion) and subjectively evaluated by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement(PGI-I), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and ICIQ-SF. Success was defined as PGI-I, VAS and negative stress test. Group-1 (n=31) and Group-2 (n=26) had a mean age of 60 vs. 58years (p=0.386). All de-mographic data were similar. The mean VLPP was 75.6cmH2O vs. 76.6cmH2O (p=0.88). The mean follow-up was 24.3 vs. 21.5months (p=0.96). Success rates were 74.2% vs. 80.2% (p=0.556), with ICIQ-SF variation of 12.6 vs.15.5 (p=0.139) and PGI-I of 71% vs. 80% (p=0.225). There was only one major complication (urethrovaginal fistula in Group-1). In conclusion, handmade and commercial slings have similar effectiveness and safety. The manufacture technique has important key-points stated in the present manuscript.
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.