Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00904618

Safety and Efficacy Study on the Implantation of the Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT-Secur) Under Local Anesthesia

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Urinary Stress Incontinence Female Urogenital Diseases Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Male Urogenital Diseases Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms Signs and Symptoms Urinary Incontinence Urinary Incontinence, Stress Urination Disorders Urogenital Diseases Urologic Diseases Urological Manifestations

Sex eligibility

Female

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 2

Primary location

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke

Sherbrooke, Quebec, J1H 5N4, Canada

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Clinical diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence or stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence
  • Acceptance of local anesthesia

Treatment and study plan

TVT-SECUR - 'Hammock' technique

Procedure

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'.

TVT-SECUR - 'U-Method'

Procedure

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'.

Local anesthesia (30 to 40 ml of a mixture of 35 ml of lidocaine 2% and 5 ml of bicarbonate 3%).

Drug

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.

Primary outcomes

  1. Local Anesthesia Satisfaction

    Time frame: Questionnaire filled 1 week after surgery

    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).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Improvement in Stress Urinary Symptoms.

    Time frame: Six months

    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.

  2. Safety of the Sling.

    Time frame: 15 months

    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'.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Université de Sherbrooke

Other

Collaborators

  • Ethicon, Inc.

Registry information

Official study title

Better Short-Term Outcomes With The 'U-Method' Compared to the 'Hammock' Technique for the Implantation of the TVT-SECUR Under Local Anesthesia

Important dates

Study start
2007
Primary completion
2009
Study completion
2009
First posted
May 19, 2009
Registry last updated
May 19, 2009

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.