Mini-Sling Ophira at 8 Years Follow-Up: Does It Sustain Results?

PURPOSE: To evaluate mini-sling long-term results and correlate them to failure predictors. Many studies show comparable results among different single-incision slings developed as an attempt to reduce complications while keeping good results, but there is a lack of evidence about mini-slings outcomes in the long term. METHODS: This prospective, single-center study evaluated 40 patients for long-term outcomes after mini-sling placement. Objective cure was defined as leakage of less than 1 g in 1-hour pad-test and no leakage at Valsalva maneuver. An objective improvement was defined as leakage of a maximum 50% of the preoperative test. Subjective continence was considered as a zero score at International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). Patients were also evaluated for comorbidities and previous surgeries. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 (±9.3) years, the mean ICIQ-SF score was 16 (±2.98) before surgery and 3.5 (± 5) at last follow-up, showing sustained improvement in the long term, mean 100 (84-109) months follow-up. The objective results show 67.5% of success, 17.5% of improvement, and 15% of failure. Age and parity were not related to outcomes (p = 0.33), but previous surgeries increase failure rate with 5.66 OR (p = 0.04). Success, improvement, and failure rates were 85, 10, and 5% for treatment-naive patients versus 50, 25, and 25% for patients with previous surgeries, respectively. CONCLUSION: Mini-sling Ophira shows good long-term results with low complications rates in patients without previous anti-incontinence surgery. Randomized trials are necessary to compare mini-slings results to other mid-urethral slings in recurred stress urinary incontinence.

Controvérsias com o emprego de malhas no tratamento de problemas do assoalho pélvico / Controversies about the use of mesh in the management of pelvic floor problems

La utilización de las mallas en el tratamiento del prolapso de los órganos pélvicos es una excelente alternativa principalmente en el tratamiento de los prolapsos apicales (uterino / cúpula vaginal), a través de una sacrocolpopexia por vía abdominal, así como en los prolapsos anteriores, por vía vaginal. Para el prolapso de la pared vaginal posterior no existe evidencia del beneficio de las mallas para la corrección del problema. Los factores más importantes para el éxito quirúrgico y minimizar las complicaciones asociadas a las mallas son fundamentalmente la selección adecuada de las pacientes y que el cirujano deba tener un adecuado entrenamiento en cirugías del piso pélvico.

Use of mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse is an excellent alternative especially in the treatment of the apical prolapse (uterine / vaginal vault) through an abdominal sacrocolpopexia; also in the anterior wall prolapse treated per vagina. There is no evidence to support use of mesh to correct posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Most important factors for favorable surgical outcome and to reduce mesh-associated complications are adequate selection of patients and a surgeon adequately trained for pelvic floor surgery.