Efficacy of anchoring the four-arm transvaginal mesh to the mid-urethra vs original surgery as a surgical correction for stress urine incontinence in coexisting anterior vaginal prolapse grades II and III: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Background: The prevalence of obesity with aging is escalating alarmingly; and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are now becoming a growing epidemic among the elderly. Synthetic transvaginal mesh has been employed with increasing popularity in the treatment of POP and is usually highly effective in controlling the principal symptoms of prolapse. However, studies have reported that mesh operations provide fairly unfavorable SUI cure rates. Therefore, additional anti-incontinence surgical strategies are increasingly being scrutinized to achieve better postoperative continence without any significant side-effects for patients with both POP and SUI. We hypothesize that the modification with the fixing of the mesh to the mid-urethra is superior to the original transvaginal mesh operation (TVM) with regard to anti-incontinence. Methods: One hundred and thirty patients diagnosed with POP-Q II-III and concomitant SUI requiring surgical treatment will be included in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. Patients will be randomly allocated to receive either original TVM (TVM group, n = 65) or modified TVM surgery (mTVM group, n = 65). As the primary outcome parameter, we will evaluate the objective SUI and POP cure rates. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity as assessed with the International Urogynaecological Association classification and subjective prolapse and incontinence cure rates reported by questionnaires. Discussion: Recognizing the importance of an additional surgical procedure for anti-incontinence management, we aim to investigate whether a stabilizing suturing of the mesh to the mid-urethra delivers superior SUI correction compared to the original prosthesis surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02935803. Registered on 20 May 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Trials is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)