4.2 Article

Short-term results of a prospective randomized evaluator blinded multicenter study comparing TVT and TVT-Secur

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 7, Pages 781-787

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1381-8

Keywords

Female stress urinary incontinence; Incontinence surgery; TVT; TVT-Secur; Subjective outcome

Funding

  1. Gynecare Scandinavia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this prospective randomized multicenter study was to compare TVT (tension-free vaginal tape) with TVT-Secur in terms of efficacy and safety. We set out to enrol 280 stress incontinent women with a half time interim analysis of short-term cure and a continuous registration of adverse events. Of 133 randomized women, 126 were operated and 123 (TVT n = 62, TVT-Secur n = 61) available for 2 months follow-up. No significant differences were found between groups regarding demographics or grade of incontinence. At 2 months follow-up, subjective cure rate following TVT-Secur was significantly lower than for TVT (72% and 92%, respectively, p = 0.01). Three major complications occurred in the TVT-Secur group: tape erosion into the urethra, a tape inadvertently placed inside the bladder, and an immediate postoperative bleeding from the corona mortis. No major complications occurred in the TVT group. No significant differences were found between groups regarding perioperative bleeding, hospital stay, urge symptoms, or postoperative urinary tract infections. Median time for surgery was 13 and 22 min for TVT-Secur and TVT, respectively (p < 0.0001). In a prospective randomized controlled study, the TVT-Secur procedure had a significantly lower subjective cure rate than the retropubic TVT procedure. Due to this, in addition to three serious complications in the TVT-Secur group, we decided to stop further enrolment after the interim analysis. We discourage from further use of the TVT-Secur.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available