Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76(07): 760-763
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-109474
Aktuell diskutiert
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Urogynäkologie – Schlingen im Vergleich – aktuelle Datenlage

Gert Naumann
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 July 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Die behandlungsbedürftige Belastungsharninkontinenz ist mit einer Prävalenz von bis zu 35% eine der häufigsten Erkrankungen in der 2. Lebenshälfte der Frau. Durch Entwicklung neuer Operationstechniken sind in den letzten Jahren die Zahlen an Inkontinenzoperationen deutlich gestiegen. Einerseits werden immer neuere Verfahren und Materialien entwickelt, andererseits findet sich eine immer breitere öffentliche Wahrnehmung des Problems mit zunehmender Enttabuisierung. Eine erfolgreiche Therapie gelingt nur bei subtiler Diagnostik dieser multikausalen Erkrankung und abgewogener Indikationsstellung unter individueller Beratung und Aufklärung der Patientinnen.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Reisenauer C, Muche-Borowski C, Anthuber D et al. Interdisciplinary S2e Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Geburth Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 899-903
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schimpf MO, Rahn DD, Wheeler TL et al. Sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 71.e1-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bai SW, Sohn WH, Chung DL, Park JH, Kim SK. Comparison of the efficacy of Burch colposuspension, pubovaginal sling, and tension-free vaginal tape for stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 91: 246-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bandarian M, Ghanbari Z, Asgari A. Comparison of transobturator tape (TOT) vs Burch method in treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 31: 518-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Foote AJ, Maughan V, Carne C. Laparoscopic colposuspension versus vaginal suburethral slingplasty: a randomized prospective trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 46: 517-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liapis A, Bakas P, Creatsas G. Burch colposuspension and tension-free vaginal tape in the management of stress urinary incontinence in women. Eur Urol 2002; 41: 469-1073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Paraiso MFR, Walters MD, Karram MM, Barber MD. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension versus tension-free vaginal tape: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 1249-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Persson J, Teleman P, Etén-Bergquist C, Wølner-Hanssen P. Cost-analyzes based on a prospective, randomized study comparing laparoscopic colposuspension with a tensionfree vaginal tape procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 1066-1073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sivaslioglu AA, Caliskan E, Dolen I, Haberal A. A randomized comparison of transobturator tape and Burch colposuspension in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2007; 18: 1015-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tellez Martinez-Fornes M, Fernández Pérez C, Fouz López C, Fernández Lucas C, Borrego Hernando J. A three year follow-up of a prospective open randomized trial to compare tension-free vaginal tape with Burch colposuspension for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Actas Urol Esp 2009; 33: 1088-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wang AC, Chen MC. Comparison of tension-free vaginal taping versus modified Burch colposuspension on urethral obstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Neurourol Urodyn 2003; 22: 185-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ward K, Hilton P. United Kingdom and Ireland Tension-free Vaginal Tape Trial Group. Prospective multicenter randomized trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence. BMJ 2002; 325: 67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nilsson CG, Palva K, Aarnio R et al. Seventeen years follow-up of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24: 1265-1269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody J et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015; (7) CD006375 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Heinonen P, Ala-Nissilä S, Räty R et al. Objective cure rates and patient satisfaction after the transobturator tape procedure during 6. 5-year follow-up. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20: 73-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Seklehner S, Laudano MA, Xie D et al. A meta-analysis of the performance of retropubic mid urethral slings versus transobturator mid urethral slings. J Urol 2015; 193: 909-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM et al. Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 2066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kenton K, Stoddard AM, Zyczynski H et al. 5-Year longitudinal follow up after retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings. J Urol 2015; 193: 203-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ford AA, Ogah JA. Retropubic or transobturator mid-urethral slings for intrinsic sphincter deficiency-related stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2797-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mustafa A, Lim CP, Hopper L et al. Single-Incision Mini-Slings Versus Standard Midurethral Slings in Surgical Management of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Effectiveness and Complications. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 402-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nambiar A, Cody JD, Jeffery ST. Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; (6) CD008709 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008709.pub2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar