ArticlePloS one2018
Ultrasonography and clinical outcomes following anti-incontinence procedures (Monarc vs MiniArc): A 3-year post-operative review.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of intrinsic sphincter deficiency on mid-urethral sling outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Single-incision slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: efficacy and adverse effects at 10-year follow-up.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the ultrasonographic positional changes of mid-urethral sling(MUS) tape in relation to symphysis pubis, and the different clinical outcomes among women who underwent MUS insertion with MiniArcTM or MonarcTM for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence 3 years after. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective follow-up study on patients with clinically confirmed stress urodynamic incontinence and urodynamic stress incontinence who had undergone MiniArc or Monarc surgery. Data regarding preoperative evaluation, intraoperative complications and post-operative follow-ups were collated. Main outcome is to determine the change in position of the sling through measurement of the x- and y-axis at rest and during Valsalva maneuver using the 3D introital ultrasound.
resultsA total of 138 patients were evaluated, 82 belonged to Monarc and 56 to MiniArc. At 3years, objective and subjective cure rates for MiniArc and Monarc were comparable (88%, 91%; p>0.05; 83%, 89%, p>0.05 respectively). Ultrasonographic changes between MiniArc and Monarc from 6 months to 3 years, showed MiniArc to exhibit significant movement in both x- [3.0 ±0.4 mm vs. 2.2 ±0.3 mm (p = 0.02) at rest; 2.6 ±0.3 mm vs. 1.6 ±0.3 mm (p<0.001) during valsalva] and y-axis [3.5 ±0.5 mm vs. 2.0 ±0.3 mm (p<0.001) at rest; 3.3 ±0.5 mm vs. 2.9 ±0.3 mm (p = 0.037) during Valsalva]. The mobility of MiniArc was significantly more than Monarc from rest to Valsalva (1.1 ±0.4 mm vs. 0.3 ±0.3 mm, p = 0.001). Tightness of the sling assessed from the major and minor axis of the urethral core had no significant difference in both groups at rest and during Valsalva. Urethral kinking percentage and the location of the sling did not yield statistical difference.
conclusionMaintenance of continence rates of mid-urethral slings depends on the compressive effect of the sling on the urethra, urethral kinking, and sling fixation. From 6months to 3 years, MiniArc changed its position in both x- and y-axis over time, which the authors attribute to loosening of the anchoring mechanism since no clinical relevance could be sought.
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.