| Title |
Randomized trial of porcine dermal sling (Pelvicol™ implant) vs. Tension-free Vaginal Tape (TVT) in the Surgical treatment of stress incontinence: a questionnaire-based study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, February 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-002-1000-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A.S. Arunkalaivanan, J.W. Barrington |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to compare porcine dermal sling (Pelvicol implant, Bard) with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) in the surgical treatment of stress incontinence. One hundred and forty-two women with genuine stress incontinence (GSI) were randomly assigned to either Pelvicol implant pubovaginal sling (n=74) or TVT (n=68). They were followed up at a minimum of 6 months (range 6-24 months), with a median follow-up of 12 months. The majority (n=109) of procedures were carried out in a day surgery unit. The median operation time was 35 minutes (range 15-60) in the TVT group and 30 minutes (range 20-80) in the Pelvicol implant group; 81% of the TVT group and 77% of the Pelvicol implant group were able to void urine within 24 hours, and had insignificant residual bladder volumes. The prevalence of postoperative symptomatic voiding dysfunction was 3.4% after TVT and 1.4% after Pelvicol implant. Nine percent of the TVT group developed de novo urge incontinence and 6% of the Pelvicol implant group had de novo urge incontinence 6 months after the procedure. Postoperative evaluation was done at the outpatient department, and a postal questionnaire was also completed to determine subjective continence status. The patient-determined cure rate was 85% in the TVT group and 89% in the Pelvicol implant group. The Pelvicol implant sling had a comparable patient- determined success rate with TVT and should be considered in the surgical treatment of women with genuine stress incontinence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 4 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 41% |
| Engineering | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#793
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,699
of 140,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 140,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.