Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Outcomes following mid-urethral sling placement in patients with intrinsic sphincteric deficiency: comparison of Sparc and Monarc slings.

PURPOSE: The treatment of patients with intrinsic sphincteric deficiency (ISD) remains difficult. It is theorized that differing vectors of support provided by retropubic versus transobturator mid-urethral sling routes may affect outcomes. We sought to compare outcomes of patients undergoing SPARC versus MONARC sling types in patients with Valsalva leak point pressures (VLPPs) below 60 cm H2O.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of female patients with stress urinary incontinence undergoing SPARC(TM) (n = 97) or MONARC(TM) (n = 39) placement following urodynamic diagnosis of ISD was performed, with minimum 12-month follow-up required. Outcomes were assessed using a questionnaire comprising validated incontinence questionnaires (UDI-6, IIQ-7) and additional items addressing satisfaction.

RESULTS: Success rates of 76% and 77% were observed in the SPARC (mean follow-up 36 months) and MONARC (mean follow-up 32 months) cohorts, respectively (p > 0.05). Superior UDI scores were demonstrated in the MONARC cohort (3.8 vs. 5.3, p = 0.04)), in contrast to similar IIQ scores across both groups (3.7 vs. 3.1, p > 0.05). A deterioration in success rates was seen in both cohorts with more extended follow-up and with lower VLPPs. However, this finding was limited by low patient numbers in these cohorts. A complication rate of 7% and 3% was noted in SPARC and MONARC cohorts (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant differences in subjective outcomes when comparing patients undergoing SPARC versus MONARC sling placement in the treatment of SUI with VLPP < 60 cm H2O. A deterioration in continence rates was seen with extended follow-up. These data may be affected by low patient numbers and related study power, in particular with more extended follow-up.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app