Randomized Prospective Study between Pubovaginal Sling Using SPARC Sling System and MONARC Sling System for the Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: Short Term Results.
- Author:
Yong Woong KIM
1
;
Yong Gil NA
;
Chong Koo SUL
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea. yongna@cnu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Urinary stress incontinence;
Surgical meshes
- MeSH:
Consensus;
Female*;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Operative Time;
Physical Examination;
Prospective Studies*;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Surgical Mesh;
Urethra;
Urethral Obstruction;
Urinary Bladder;
Urinary Incontinence*;
Urinary Incontinence, Stress;
Urodynamics
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2005;46(10):1078-1082
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: A variety of retropubic and transobturator surgical techniques have been developed to restore support of the urethral sphincteric apparatus, but there is no consensus on the best procedure. The safety and efficacy of the SPARC (SPARC sling system, suprapubic arc, American Medical System) and the MONARC (MONARC subfascial hammock, American Medical System) sling systems for the treatment of female stress incontinence were evaluated in a prospective randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty three women with stress incontinence were randomly assigned to the SPARC (n=22), or MONARC sling (n=21) procedures, between December 2003 and July 2004. The operative techniques complied with the manufacturers instructions. The patient characteristics and urodynamic evaluations were similar in both groups. The preoperative evaluation included a careful history taking, physical examination, voiding diary, stress & pad test and a comprehensive urodynamic examination. The postoperative evaluation included a questionnaire, stress & pad test and uroflowmetry with postvoid residuals. RESULTS: The mean operative time was shorter in the MONARC group, but this difference was not significant (23 min vs. 26 min). No bladder injury occurred in the MONARC group, versus 4.5% (n=1) in the SPARC group. The rate of postoperative urethral obstruction, including retention, was 27.2% (n=6) in the SPARC group, versus 28.5% (n=6) in the MONARC group, but this was improved by conservative therapy. The rates of cure (81.8% vs. 80.9%), improvement (18.2% vs. 19.1%) and failure (0% vs. 0%) were similar in the SPARC and MONARC groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MONARC procedure appears to be equally efficient as the SPARC procedure for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women over a short-term follow-up. Although further studies are needed to establish its long-term efficacy and safety, the SPARC and MONARC procedures might be attractive alternative tools for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.
