Objectives: There is a considerable lack of consensus regarding indications and long-term efficacy of the many techniques for treating urinary stress incontinence. We report the long-term results of a modified pubovaginal sling procedure. Methods: From 1989 to 1998, 129 consecutive patients underwent a pubovaginal sling by two urologists. 86 of the subjects (67%) replied to a questionnaire designed to assess the outcome of the procedure and the subjective satisfaction with the operative result. During surgery we performed a modified sling procedure using a cutaneous strip strengthened by rectus fascia and placed with almost no tension. Special care was taken not to lacerate or damage but support the urethral musculature. We routinely did an anterior vaginoplasty, and posterior vaginoplasty if necessary. Results: Mean patient age was 56.8 years, mean follow-up 39 months, mean parity 2.1, previous surgery 0.4. Improvement rates were determined as follows (‘Are you satisfied with the operation?’): Significantly reduced incontinence (i.e. 50–100% improvement) was found in 65.2%, slight reduction (10–40% improvement) in 15.2%, no change in 17.4% and worsening in 2.2% of all 103 cases. The majority of all complications were wound infections. Conclusion: Despite the considerable failure rate, the substantial improvement in the quality of life of almost two thirds of the patients during a 3-year follow-up recommends a pubovaginal sling as a treatment option for urinary incontinence.

Keywords:
Pubovaginal sling, Urinary incontinence, Long-term results
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.