The objective was to observe the satisfaction of local anesthesia during the implantation of the TVT-SECUR for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, with the use of questionnaires completed by the patients, and to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of the sling, with a comparison of the two techniques of implantation: the 'U-Method' and the 'Hammock' technique.
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common problem, affecting women of all ages. Treatment options for SUI include physiotherapy and surgical interventions, such as retropubic operations and midurethral slings. Conventional retropubic and transobturator tapes are the preferred choice for most surgeons, because of their wide applicability, technical simplicity and clinical efficacy. The retropubic tape has been effective for many years, but exposes the patients to serious complications, such as bladder perforations, principally because of the use of the retropubic space for the fixation of the tape. In an attempt to avoid the retropubic space, the second generation of slings, the transobturator tape, was introduced. However, prolonged postoperative groin pain as well as vascular injuries have been reported. The last generation of midurethral slings, the tension-free vaginal tape system (TVT-SecurTM, Gynecare, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA), introduced in 2005, attempts to lower the number of complications, by involving only a small vaginal incision and no exit wound. This 8-cm long laser-cut polypropylene mesh can potentially be implanted under local anesthesia, because of a less-invasive technique using minimal vaginal dissection as well as avoidance of retropubic space and obturator fossa. In the case of conventional midurethral slings, even if their implantation under local anesthesia has been studied and proven relatively safe, this practice has not gained popularity. This was a prospective, clinical study with primary objective to observe the satisfaction of local anesthesia during the implantation of the TVT-SECUR, with the use of questionnaires completed by the patients. The secondary objective was to observe the short-term efficacy and safety of the sling. The final objective was to compare the two techniques of implantation: the 'U-Method' and the 'Hammock' technique.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
48
The surgery was done under local anesthesia by one high-volume surgeon. The 'Hammock' technique, similar to the transobturator tape dissection, was used in the first 23 cases and the 'U-Method', similar to the retropubic tape dissection, in the last 25 cases. Interim analysis performed after 23 cases led us to change the technique to the 'U-Method'.
The surgery was done under local anesthesia by one high-volume surgeon. The 'Hammock' technique, similar to the transobturator tape dissection, was used in the first 23 cases and the 'U-Method', similar to the retropubic tape dissection, in the last 25 cases. Interim analysis performed after 23 cases led us to change the technique to the 'U-Method'.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Local Anesthesia Satisfaction
Local anesthesia satisfaction was assessed with a questionnaire completed by the patients. The patients were asked if they would recommend this type of anesthesia (yes or no).
Time frame: Questionnaire filled 1 week after surgery
Improvement in Stress Urinary Symptoms.
A questionnaire with a Likert scale from one to five was used to assess the improvement in stress urinary symptoms at six months for each technique, the 'Hammock' technique and the 'U-Method' (1-Worst, 2-Same, 3-Improved, 4-Almost cured, 5-Cured). Patients had to answer 3 or more on the scale to be considered improved.
Time frame: Six months
Safety of the Sling.
Safety of the sling was assessed with a record of perioperative and postoperative complications. The following are all the complications experienced with the TVT-SECUR for each technique, the 'Hammock' technique and the 'U-Method'.
Time frame: 15 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Local anesthesia consisted of 30 to 40 ml of a mixture of 35 ml of lidocaine 2% and 5 ml of bicarbonate 3%. Sedation was used in association with local anesthesia, including 1 mg of lorazepam sublingual as well as a combination of 0.5 to 2 mg intravenous (IV) of midazolam and 50 to 200 ug IV of fentanyl. Postoperative analgesia consisted of a prescription of 30 tablets of morphine 5 mg.