Background: A wide variety of surgical procedures has been used to treat female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The purpose of this study was to compare cadaveric fascia lata (CFL) sling with intravaginal slingplasty (IVS) in the surgical treatment of SUI. Methods: One hundred and thirty-nine women with SUI were randomly assigned to either CFL sling (n = 67) or IVS (n = 72). Concomitant urinary urge incontinence was present in 49 patients (73%) in the CFL sling and 44 patients (61%) in the IVS group. Daily mean pad usage was 4.1 ± 3.5 in the CFL sling and 2.9 ± 1.7 in the IVS group. The objective cure rate was evaluated by the pad test, and patient satisfaction rate was assessed by a subjective questionnaire. Results: The surgical results of both procedures with a follow-up 12 months were documented. The overall success rate was 79% in the CFL sling and 70.8% in the IVS (p = 0.261). In contrast patient satisfaction rates were 82 and 87.5%, respectively (p = 0.210). Comparison of the CFL sling with IVS showed persistent urinary urge incontinence in 67 and 25% (p = 0.0001) and de novo urinary urge incontinence in 22 and 6.9%, respectively (p = 0.009). The groups did not differ significantly with respect to intraoperative and postoperative complications. Conclusions: There is no statistical difference in the overall success, satisfaction and complication rates in either group. In our series, both procedures were found to be effective, durable and significantly improved quality of life in patients with SUI but long-term results are awaited.

Keywords:
Urinary incontinence, Pubovaginal sling, Cadaveric fascia lata, Intravaginal slingplasty
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
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.