Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 31;2017(7):CD006375. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub4

Kim 2004.

Methods RCT comparing the IRIS (Innovative Replacement of Incontinence Surgery) tape with TVT and SPARC procedure
Participants 96 women with SUI were randomised
Interventions Group A: TVT (n = 32)
Group B: SPARC (n = 30)
 Group C: IRIS (n = 34).
All 3 groups had comparable background characteristics
Outcomes

  • Subjective cure

  • Objective cure

  • Operating time

  • Length of hospital stay

  • Perioperative complications

  • Bladder perforation

  • Voiding dysfunction

  • De no urgency/urgency urinary incontinence

  • Vaginal tape erosions
Notes Follow‐up was for 1 year
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "In this controlled, prospective, randomised study ...."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No information
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No information
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No information