This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Four-year functional results of the suburethral sling procedure for stress urinary incontinence: a French prospective randomized multicentre study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes.



Key Questions Addressed
1 Sling vs Comparator RCT outcomes (excluding AEs)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Sling Adverse Events
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Four-year functional results of the suburethral sling procedure for stress urinary incontinence: a French prospective randomized multicentre study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes.
Author Ballester M., Bui C., Frobert JL., Grisard-Anaf M., Lienhart J., Fernandez H., David-Montefiore E., Rouzier R., Daraï E.
Country Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6, Paris, France. marcos.ballester@tnn.aphp.fr
Year 2012
Numbers Pubmed ID: 21409548
37 (internal)

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Functional results after the suburethral sling procedure for urinary stress incontinence: a prospective randomized multicentre study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes. Daraï E., Frobert JL., Grisard-Anaf M., Lienhart J., Fernandez H., Dubernard G., David-Montefiore E. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Hôpital Tenon, Université Saint-Antoine Paris IV, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 2007
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Peri-operative complications and pain after the suburethral sling procedure for urinary stress incontinence: a French prospective randomised multicentre study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes. David-Montefiore E., Frobert JL., Grisard-Anaf M., Lienhart J., Bonnet K., Poncelet C., Daraï E. Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Hôpital Tenon, Université Saint-Antoine Paris IV, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris Cedex 20, France. 2006
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Sling vs Comparator RCT outcomes (excluding AEs)
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 I-STOP retropubic Study describes as "retropubic route"
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 transobturator Study reports as "transobturator route" for ISTOP device
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Country France
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome Categories Reported Objective SUI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Subjective SUI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Quality of life
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Population (reason for surgery etc.) Symptomatic SUI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Urodynamic SUI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mixed incontinence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT Comparison Category Retropubic vs. Obturator
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Multicenter Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Institution Type Unclear/Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Number of surgeons performing procedures Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Surgeons' Training Urology
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
General
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Residents or fellows performing surgery? Unclear/Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Quality (overall) B (fair)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Overall Study Notes This is a 4 year f/u of RCT of women undergoing retropubic vs transobturator midurethral slings. The study was powered based on finding a difference in urgency urinary incontinence and "late voiding dysfunction" so it is not clear why they did not focus on this for their outcomes. Success was based on composite outcome and they were able to get 4 year follow up on most of the patients but in a study with small sample size a drop out rate of 19% may have impacted long term results but the authors do not report on analysis assuming loss to follow up were failures. Groups not equivalent at baseline - MUCP lower in retropubic group than obturator group.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Sponsor/Funding ... Other ... not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
No. Randomized 42 46 88
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mean Age 56.8 53.4 not listed
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Post-Op Follow-Up Interval (Maximum) 52.7 months 53.1 months
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
P-Value
Outcome: SUI cure      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 42 46 NS
Counts 27 32
Percentage 64.3 69.5
P-Value
Outcome: dysuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.08
Counts 17 10
Percentage 50 27
P-Value
Outcome: dysuria      Population: TVT Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.08
Counts 17 10
Percentage 50 27
P-Value
Outcome: de novo dysuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 17 10 0.2
Counts 15 10
Percentage 88.2 100
P-Value
Outcome: de novo dysuria      Population: TVT Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 17 10 0.2
Counts 15 10
Percentage 88.2 100
P-Value
Outcome: pollakiuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.94
Counts 9 9
Percentage 26.5 24.3
P-Value
Outcome: pollakiuria      Population: TVT Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.94
Counts 9 9
Percentage 26.5 24.3
P-Value
Outcome: de novo pollakiuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 9 9 0.69
Counts 5 8
Percentage 55.5 88.8
P-Value
Outcome: urgency      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.96
Counts 14 14
Percentage 41.2 37.8
P-Value
Outcome: de novo ugency      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 14 14 0.72
Counts 7 10
Percentage 50 71.4
P-Value
Outcome: nocturia      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.27
Counts 13 20
Percentage 38.2 54
P-Value
Outcome: de novo nocturia      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 13 20 0.09
Counts 9 18
Percentage 69.2 90
Outcome: global discomfort      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


0 N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 1.7 1.9
Unit 7.4 6.5
Max 10 10
Min 3 2


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 1.9 0.9
Unit 1.2 0.5
Max 7 3
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 2.3 2.6
Unit 2 2.1
Max 8 8
Min 0 0
Outcome: global discomfort      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


0 N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 7.4 6.5
Standard Deviation 1.7 1.9


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 1.2 0.5
Standard Deviation 1.9 0.9


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 2 2.1
Standard Deviation 2.3 2.6
Outcome: social or emotional discomfort      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 2.5 2.8
Unit 6.2 5.4
Max 10 10
Min 0 0


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 1.7 0.8
Unit 1 0.5
Max 6 3
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 0.6 1.6
Unit 0.2 0.5
Max 2 7
Min 0 0
Outcome: social or emotional discomfort      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 6.2 5.4
Standard Deviation 1.9 2.8


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 1 0.5
Standard Deviation 1.7 0.8


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 0.2 0.5
Standard Deviation 0.6 1.6
Outcome: UDIQ scores      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 54.3 53
Unit 64.2 62
Max 127 172
Min 0 0


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 10 5
Unit 4.7 1.2
Max 127 33
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 37.6 58.3
Unit 34 38.7
Max 125 225
Min 0 0
Outcome: UDIQ scores      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 64.2 62
Standard Deviation 54.3 53


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 4.7 1.2
Standard Deviation 10 5


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 34 38.7
Standard Deviation 37.6 58.3
Outcome: IIQ scores      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 57.6 43.5
Unit 32 25.7
Max 251 168
Min 0 0


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 16 0
Unit 2.6 0
Max 105 0
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 29.5 43
Unit 14.9 21.4
Max 124 143
Min 0 0
Outcome: IIQ scores      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 32 62
Standard Deviation 57.6 53


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 4.7 1.2
Standard Deviation 10 5


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 34 38.7
Standard Deviation 37.6 58.3
P-Value
Outcome: OR time      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 0.03
Standard Deviation 9.5 6.6
Unit 21 17
Max 50 40
Min 10 8
Outcome: Self-catheterization rate immed after surg      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation
Unit 0 0
Max
Min
P-Value
Outcome: Mean postop PVR      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 0.12
Standard Deviation 45 49
Unit 23 28
Max 150 150
Min 0 0
P-Value
Outcome: Post-op pain      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 0.0005
Standard Deviation 2 1.4
Unit 2 0.8
Max 7 6
Min 0 0
P-Value
Outcome: Hospital stay      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 not significant
Standard Deviation 1.7 0.5
Unit 1.8 1.4
Max 8 2
Min 1 1


Extraction Form: Sling Adverse Events
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Retropubic synthetic
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Transobturator synthetic
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study Type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Sling Category Retropubic synthetic
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Obturator synthetic
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Adverse Event Ascertainment Passive
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was the Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications system used? No / Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was a data safety monitoring board used? No / Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Sponsor/Funding Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
P-Value
Outcome: SUI cure      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 42 46 NS
Counts 27 32
Percentage 64.3 69.5
P-Value
Outcome: dysuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.08
Counts 17 10
Percentage 50 27
P-Value
Outcome: dysuria      Population: TVT Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.08
Counts 17 10
Percentage 50 27
P-Value
Outcome: de novo dysuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 17 10 0.2
Counts 15 10
Percentage 88.2 100
P-Value
Outcome: de novo dysuria      Population: TVT Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 17 10 0.2
Counts 15 10
Percentage 88.2 100
P-Value
Outcome: pollakiuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.94
Counts 9 9
Percentage 26.5 24.3
P-Value
Outcome: pollakiuria      Population: TVT Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.94
Counts 9 9
Percentage 26.5 24.3
P-Value
Outcome: de novo pollakiuria      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 9 9 0.69
Counts 5 8
Percentage 55.5 88.8
P-Value
Outcome: urgency      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.96
Counts 14 14
Percentage 41.2 37.8
P-Value
Outcome: de novo ugency      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 14 14 0.72
Counts 7 10
Percentage 50 71.4
P-Value
Outcome: nocturia      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 34 37 0.27
Counts 13 20
Percentage 38.2 54
P-Value
Outcome: de novo nocturia      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


4 years

N Enrolled 13 20 0.09
Counts 9 18
Percentage 69.2 90
Outcome: global discomfort      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


0 N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 1.7 1.9
Unit 7.4 6.5
Max 10 10
Min 3 2


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 1.9 0.9
Unit 1.2 0.5
Max 7 3
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 2.3 2.6
Unit 2 2.1
Max 8 8
Min 0 0
Outcome: global discomfort      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


0 N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 7.4 6.5
Standard Deviation 1.7 1.9


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 1.2 0.5
Standard Deviation 1.9 0.9


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 2 2.1
Standard Deviation 2.3 2.6
Outcome: social or emotional discomfort      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 2.5 2.8
Unit 6.2 5.4
Max 10 10
Min 0 0


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 1.7 0.8
Unit 1 0.5
Max 6 3
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 0.6 1.6
Unit 0.2 0.5
Max 2 7
Min 0 0
Outcome: social or emotional discomfort      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 6.2 5.4
Standard Deviation 1.9 2.8


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 1 0.5
Standard Deviation 1.7 0.8


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 0.2 0.5
Standard Deviation 0.6 1.6
Outcome: UDIQ scores      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 54.3 53
Unit 64.2 62
Max 127 172
Min 0 0


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 10 5
Unit 4.7 1.2
Max 127 33
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 37.6 58.3
Unit 34 38.7
Max 125 225
Min 0 0
Outcome: UDIQ scores      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 64.2 62
Standard Deviation 54.3 53


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 4.7 1.2
Standard Deviation 10 5


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 34 38.7
Standard Deviation 37.6 58.3
Outcome: IIQ scores      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 57.6 43.5
Unit 32 25.7
Max 251 168
Min 0 0


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation 16 0
Unit 2.6 0
Max 105 0
Min 0 0


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Standard Deviation 29.5 43
Unit 14.9 21.4
Max 124 143
Min 0 0
Outcome: IIQ scores      Population: TVT
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


preop N/A

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 32 62
Standard Deviation 57.6 53


1 years

N Analyzed 42 46
Mean 4.7 1.2
Standard Deviation 10 5


4 years

N Analyzed 34 37
Mean 34 38.7
Standard Deviation 37.6 58.3
P-Value
Outcome: OR time      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 0.03
Standard Deviation 9.5 6.6
Unit 21 17
Max 50 40
Min 10 8
Outcome: Self-catheterization rate immed after surg      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46
Standard Deviation
Unit 0 0
Max
Min
P-Value
Outcome: Mean postop PVR      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 0.12
Standard Deviation 45 49
Unit 23 28
Max 150 150
Min 0 0
P-Value
Outcome: Post-op pain      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 0.0005
Standard Deviation 2 1.4
Unit 2 0.8
Max 7 6
Min 0 0
P-Value
Outcome: Hospital stay      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure I-STOP retropubic transobturator Retropubic synthetic Transobturator synthetic Comparison Measure I-STOP retropubic vs. transobturator


1 days

N Analyzed 42 46 not significant
Standard Deviation 1.7 0.5
Unit 1.8 1.4
Max 8 2
Min 1 1

Adverse Events
Arm or Total Title Description Follow-up time In-hospital or After discharge Is event serious? Reported definition of serious event Number affected Number at risk (analyzed) Difference between 2 slings (eg, OR/RR or %, with 95% CI) Reported P value between slings Comments
Retropubic synthetic Organ injury in OR (urethra, bladder, bowel) bladder 1 mo in OR ND ND 4 42 ND 0.03
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Transobturator synthetic 1 mo in OR ND ND 0 46 ND
Total
Retropubic synthetic Organ injury in OR (urethra, bladder, bowel) Vaginal perforation 1 mo in OR ND ND 0 42 ND 0.03
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Transobturator synthetic 1 mo in OR ND ND 5 46 ND
Total
Retropubic synthetic hemorrhage hemorrhage >200cc 1 mo in OR ND ND 2 42 ND 0.13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Transobturator synthetic 1 mo in OR ND ND 0 46 ND
Total
Retropubic synthetic hematoma 1 readmitted due to abscess of hematoma 1 mo both ND ND 2 42 ND 0.13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Transobturator synthetic 1 mo both ND ND 0 46 ND
Total
Retropubic synthetic Infection, surgical site/wound abscess superimposed on hematoma, req readmission, antibiotics 1 mo after ND ND 1 42 ND 0.28
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Transobturator synthetic 1 mo after ND ND 0 46 ND
Total
Retropubic synthetic Mesh erosion/extrusion/exposure/granulation tissue scanty reporting 4 yrs after ND ND 0 42 ND --
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Transobturator synthetic 4 yrs after ND ND 0 46 ND
Total