A comparative study of a single-incision sling and a transobturator sling: clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes

Introduction

In this retrospective study, a comparison is made of the clinical efficacy of two stress urinary incontinence treatment apparatuses, a single-incision sling and a transobturator sling.

Methods

Eighty-five (single-incision n?=?43, transobturator n?=?42) consecutive patients were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the cough stress test (CST), the pad test, the Impact Questionnaire-Short Form (IIQ-7), the Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), the Sexual Questionnaire-SF (PIS-Q), the pain score, and the postoperative changes in urodynamic parameters. A comparison of the 1-year follow-up data is presented.

Results

Three months post-surgery, 81.8% of the single-incision sling group and 74.4% of the transobturator sling group had a negative cough test and a dry pad test. One year after surgery, significantly decreasing UDI-6, IIQ-7, and increasing PIS-Q scores were observed in both groups, while the complication rates remained similar. Postoperatively, the single-incision sling group seems to show a greater improvement in UDI-6 score, require less operation time, and experience less blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a smaller decrease in maximal urethral closure pressure (MUCP).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the single-incision sling and the transobturator sling are equally as effective and safe for the treatment of stress incontinence, as evaluated during the 1-year follow-up. The insertion of a single-incision sling seems to be less painful than that of a conventional sling. One year after surgery, the MUCP and mean flow rate of the transobturator sling group had significantly decreased compared with that of the single-incision sling group.