Robotic Excision of Transobturator Midurethral Sling

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. S67
Author(s):  
DC McKee ◽  
H Chapman ◽  
J Yi ◽  
PM Magtibay
2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1335-1338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan B. Tate ◽  
Patrick J. Culligan ◽  
Robert D. Acland

2012 ◽  
Vol 119 (Part 2) ◽  
pp. 428-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent A. Parnell ◽  
Elisabeth A. Johnson ◽  
Denniz A. Zolnoun

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alkan Cabuk ◽  
◽  
Akif Erbin ◽  
Metin Savun ◽  
Ali Ayranci ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 203 (5) ◽  
pp. 508.e1-508.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Cadish ◽  
Michele R. Hacker ◽  
Laura E. Dodge ◽  
Patricia Dramitinos ◽  
Lekha S. Hota ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Giulia I. Lane ◽  
Colby A. Dixon ◽  
M. Louis Moy ◽  
Cynthia S. Fok

This chapter summarizes the results of the Trial of Mid Urethral Slings (TOMUS), in which women with stress urinary incontinence were randomized to a retropubic midurethral sling versus a transobturator sling. Bladder perforations and voiding dysfunction occurred only in the retropubic sling group; neurologic symptoms (weakness and numbness) were significantly more common in the transobturator group. Both objective and subjective measures of treatment success at 12 months were similar. Based on this and subsequent studies, retropubic and transobturator midurethral sling approaches appear to have similar outcomes at 12 months for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. However, the approaches differ in their adverse-event profiles.


2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ergul Aslan ◽  
Funda Gungor Ugurlucan ◽  
Dilek Bilgic ◽  
Onay Yalcin ◽  
Nezihe Kizilkaya Beji

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document