A randomised controlled trial comparing TVT, Pelvicol and autologous fascial slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women

Abstract

Objective: To compare TVT(TM) , Pelvicol(TM) and autologous fascial slings (AFSs).

Design: A multicentre randomised control trial.

Setting: Four units in the UK.

Population: Women requiring primary surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Methods: A total of 201 women with urodynamically proven stress incontinence were randomised into three groups and assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year.

Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was patient-reported improvement rates. Secondary outcomes included operative complications/time, intermittent self-catheterisation (ISC) and re-operation rates. The quality-of-life tools used were the Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (BFLUTS) and EuroQoL.

Results: Fifty women had a Pelvicol(TM) sling, 79 had AFSs and 72 had TVT(TM). At 6 months the Pelvicol(TM) arm had poorer improvement rates (73%) than TVT(TM) (92%)/AFS (95%); P=0.003. At 1 year only 61% of the Pelvicol(TM) slings remained as improved, versus 93% of TVTs and 90% of AFSs (P<0.001). Pelvicol(TM) has poorer dry rates (22%) than TVT(TM) (55%)/AFS (48%) (P=0.001) at 1 year; hence, the Pelvicol(TM) arm was suspended following interim analysis. There is no difference in the success rates between TVT(TM) and AFS. One in five women in the Pelvicol(TM) arm had further surgery for SUI by 1 year, but none required further surgery in the other arms. AFS took longer to do (54 minutes versus 35 minutes for TVT(TM) /36 minutes for Pelvicol(TM) ) and had higher ISC rates (9.9 versus 0% Pelvicol(TM) /TVT(TM) 1.5%). Hospital stay was shortest for TVT(TM) (2 days). Most BFLUTS domains showed improvement in all three arms. The improvement for women in the Pelvicol(TM) arm, however, was less than for women in the other arms in several key domains.

Conclusions: Pelvicol(TM) cannot be recommended for the management of SUI. TVT(TM) does not have greater efficacy than AFS, but does utilise fewer resources.