Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 26;20(4):335–341. doi: 10.5213/inj.1632648.324

Table 3.

Detailed individual outcome of 15 patients that underwent further analysis in the current case series

Patient No. Preoperative
Surgeon Sling type Postoperative
PGI VAS
24-Hr pad test (g) Follow-up (mo) Cured Improved
Pads IQoL ICIQ-SF Pads IQoL ICIQ-SF Perineal Inguinal
1a 5 NR NR A AdVance NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR No No
2 NR 51.1 15 A AdVance 0 90.9 5 1 1 0 0 83 Yes No
3 4 31.8 21 A AdVance 3 72.7 12 1 0 0 209 83 No Yes
4a 6 15.9 16 A AdVance NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR No No
5 5 NR NR A AdVance 0 36.4 7 2 0 0 0 79 Yes No
6 4 30.7 16 A AdVance 3 45.5 13 4 0 0 20 80 No Yes
7 5 NR 15 A AdVance 3 85.2 13 4 0 0 130 64 No No
8 7 15.9 16 A AdVance 2 51.1 13 3 1 0 40 72 No Yes
9 2 51.1 14 A AdVance 1 SP 68.2 8 2 1 1 4 70 Yes No
10 NR NR 12 A AdVance 0 90.9 4 1 0 0 0 70 Yes No
11 6 NR 14 B AdVance 5 8 20 6 2 2 0 62 No No
12 5 68.2 4 B AdVanceXP 6 18.2 21 1 0 0 0 51 No No
13 4 31.8 15 B AdVanceXP 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 38 Yes No
14 4 45.5 14 B AdVanceXP 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 34 Yes No
15 2 30.7 15 B AdVanceXP 0 95.5 8 2 0 0 2 18 Yes No

Note that patient 1 and 4 underwent implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter during follow-up period.

ICIQ-SF, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form; IQoL, International Quality of Life score; NR, not reported; PGI, patient’s global impression of improvement score; SP, safety pad; VAS, visual analogue scale.