Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study....
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Fook Chin Chiang [verfasserIn] Ryan Sun [verfasserIn] Yu- Jun Chang [verfasserIn] Yi- Ing Li [verfasserIn] Mou- Jong Sun [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017, 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:10 ; year:2021 ; number:4 ; pages:235-242

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ061275557

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ061275557
003	DE-627
005	20230501173055.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ061275557
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RG1-991
100	0		\|a Fook Chin Chiang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure.
650		4	\|a efficacy
650		4	\|a miniarc
650		4	\|a single incision slings
650		4	\|a solyx
650		4	\|a stress incontinence
650		4	\|a urodynamic changes
653		0	\|a Gynecology and obstetrics
700	0		\|a Ryan Sun \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yu- Jun Chang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yi- Ing Li \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Mou- Jong Sun \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 \|g 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 \|w (DE-627)733750087 \|w (DE-600)2696587-2 \|x 22133070 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:10 \|g year:2021 \|g number:4 \|g pages:235-242
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2004
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2336
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 10 \|j 2021 \|e 4 \|h 235-242

Indexfelder

matchkey_str	article:22133070:2021----::oprsnflnclfiaynuoyaicagssnsnlicsosigmnacsoyfrhtet
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
callnumber-subject-code	RG
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061275557 (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Fook Chin Chiang verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure. efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes Gynecology and obstetrics Ryan Sun verfasserin aut Yu- Jun Chang verfasserin aut Yi- Ing Li verfasserin aut Mou- Jong Sun verfasserin aut In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 (DE-627)733750087 (DE-600)2696587-2 22133070 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242 https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d kostenfrei http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 4 235-242
spelling	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061275557 (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Fook Chin Chiang verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure. efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes Gynecology and obstetrics Ryan Sun verfasserin aut Yu- Jun Chang verfasserin aut Yi- Ing Li verfasserin aut Mou- Jong Sun verfasserin aut In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 (DE-627)733750087 (DE-600)2696587-2 22133070 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242 https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d kostenfrei http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 4 235-242
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061275557 (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Fook Chin Chiang verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure. efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes Gynecology and obstetrics Ryan Sun verfasserin aut Yu- Jun Chang verfasserin aut Yi- Ing Li verfasserin aut Mou- Jong Sun verfasserin aut In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 (DE-627)733750087 (DE-600)2696587-2 22133070 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242 https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d kostenfrei http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 4 235-242
allfieldsGer	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061275557 (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Fook Chin Chiang verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure. efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes Gynecology and obstetrics Ryan Sun verfasserin aut Yu- Jun Chang verfasserin aut Yi- Ing Li verfasserin aut Mou- Jong Sun verfasserin aut In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 (DE-627)733750087 (DE-600)2696587-2 22133070 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242 https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d kostenfrei http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 4 235-242
allfieldsSound	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 doi (DE-627)DOAJ061275557 (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RG1-991 Fook Chin Chiang verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure. efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes Gynecology and obstetrics Ryan Sun verfasserin aut Yu- Jun Chang verfasserin aut Yi- Ing Li verfasserin aut Mou- Jong Sun verfasserin aut In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 (DE-627)733750087 (DE-600)2696587-2 22133070 nnns volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242 https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d kostenfrei http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2021 4 235-242
language	English
source	In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242
sourceStr	In Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy 10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242 volume:10 year:2021 number:4 pages:235-242
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes Gynecology and obstetrics
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Fook Chin Chiang @@aut@@ Ryan Sun @@aut@@ Yu- Jun Chang @@aut@@ Yi- Ing Li @@aut@@ Mou- Jong Sun @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	733750087
id	DOAJ061275557
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ061275557</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230501173055.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ061275557</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RG1-991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fook Chin Chiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">efficacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">miniarc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">single incision slings</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">solyx</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">stress incontinence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">urodynamic changes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Gynecology and obstetrics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ryan Sun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yu- Jun Chang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yi- Ing Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mou- Jong Sun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)733750087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2696587-2</subfield><subfield code="x">22133070</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:235-242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">235-242</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Fook Chin Chiang
spellingShingle	Fook Chin Chiang misc RG1-991 misc efficacy misc miniarc misc single incision slings misc solyx misc stress incontinence misc urodynamic changes misc Gynecology and obstetrics Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
authorStr	Fook Chin Chiang
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)733750087
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RG1-991
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	22133070
topic_title	RG1-991 Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence efficacy miniarc single incision slings solyx stress incontinence urodynamic changes
topic	misc RG1-991 misc efficacy misc miniarc misc single incision slings misc solyx misc stress incontinence misc urodynamic changes misc Gynecology and obstetrics
topic_unstemmed	misc RG1-991 misc efficacy misc miniarc misc single incision slings misc solyx misc stress incontinence misc urodynamic changes misc Gynecology and obstetrics
topic_browse	misc RG1-991 misc efficacy misc miniarc misc single incision slings misc solyx misc stress incontinence misc urodynamic changes misc Gynecology and obstetrics
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy
hierarchy_parent_id	733750087
hierarchy_top_title	Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)733750087 (DE-600)2696587-2
title	Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ061275557 (DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d
title_full	Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
author_sort	Fook Chin Chiang
journal	Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy
journalStr	Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	235
author_browse	Fook Chin Chiang Ryan Sun Yu- Jun Chang Yi- Ing Li Mou- Jong Sun
container_volume	10
class	RG1-991
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Fook Chin Chiang
doi_str_mv	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (miniarc® vs. solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
callnumber	RG1-991
title_auth	Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
abstract	Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure.
abstractGer	Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure.
abstract_unstemmed	Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	4
title_short	Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20 https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070
remote_bool	true
author2	Ryan Sun Yu- Jun Chang Yi- Ing Li Mou- Jong Sun
author2Str	Ryan Sun Yu- Jun Chang Yi- Ing Li Mou- Jong Sun
ppnlink	733750087
callnumber-subject	RG - Gynecology and Obstetrics
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20
callnumber-a	RG1-991
up_date	2024-07-03T19:48:57.823Z
_version_	1803588613262278656
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ061275557</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230501173055.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ061275557</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RG1-991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fook Chin Chiang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and urodynamic parameter changes between the MiniArc and the Solyx sling for the treatment of female urodynamic stress incontinence (USI).Materials and Methods: One-hundred and thirty (MiniArc n = 79, BS-Solyx n = 51) patients were included in this study. Cough stress test (ST), pad test (PT), Incontinence Impact short form Questionnaire (IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory six-item questionnaire (UDI-6), Sexual Questionnaire-Short Form (PIS-Q), and urodynamic parametric changes were assessed to determine objective and subjective outcomes following the procedure. Objective cure was defined as negative ST and PT <2 g and subjective cure was defined as “No” to the answer of UDI-6 Question #3. Predictors of surgical failure were also determined.Results: All Solyx users, as opposed to 91.1% of MiniArc patients, obtained objective cure at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.042). No significant difference in subjective cure rates (93.7% vs. 90.2% at 3-months (P = 0.513); 89.9% vs. 80.4% at 1 year for Solyx and MiniArc patients, respectively (P = 0.126)) and improvement scores in UDI-6 and IIQ-7 were observed. The Solyx group incurred more de novo urgency (17.6% vs. 6.3% at 3 months (P = 0.042); 23.5% vs. 7.6% at 1 year (P = 0.01)). Both procedures yielded significant decrements in maximal urethral closure pressure (P < 0.001) and average flow rate (P = 0.015). The preoperative PT and sling type were strong predictors of surgical failure, where the Solyx tape reported lower odds (odds ratio = 0.174, P = 0.02) compared to the MiniArc sling.Conclusion: Single-incision mini-slings are safe and effective treatment for female USI. The Solyx SIS demonstrated superiority over the MiniArc in this study based on its higher objective cure rate and lower risk for surgical failure.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">efficacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">miniarc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">single incision slings</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">solyx</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">stress incontinence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">urodynamic changes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Gynecology and obstetrics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ryan Sun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yu- Jun Chang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yi- Ing Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mou- Jong Sun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2021), 4, Seite 235-242</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)733750087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2696587-2</subfield><subfield code="x">22133070</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:235-242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_102_20</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/5bc264fe065c4dc5934270c5ff20588d</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.e-gmit.com/article.asp?issn=2213-3070;year=2021;volume=10;issue=4;spage=235;epage=242;aulast=Chiang</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2213-3070</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">235-242</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4019012

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of clinical efficacy and urodynamic changes using single-incision slings (MiniArc® vs. Solyx™) for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?