Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Randomized prospective study comparing Monarc and Miniarc suburethral slings

Foote, Andrew

Description

Aim Recently a miniature version of the Monarc suburethral sling has been introduced. This paper aims to evaluate the postoperative recovery, effectiveness and complications of these two types of suburethral sling. Methods This was a prospective randomized series of 50 female patients with stress incontinence who underwent either a Monarc or Miniarc suburethral sling. Results The only significant intraoperative difference was a shorter operation time for the Miniarc (18.8 vs 22.4 min). The...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorFoote, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-13T22:35:17Z
dc.identifier.issn1341-8076
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/76524
dc.description.abstractAim Recently a miniature version of the Monarc suburethral sling has been introduced. This paper aims to evaluate the postoperative recovery, effectiveness and complications of these two types of suburethral sling. Methods This was a prospective randomized series of 50 female patients with stress incontinence who underwent either a Monarc or Miniarc suburethral sling. Results The only significant intraoperative difference was a shorter operation time for the Miniarc (18.8 vs 22.4 min). The success rates were similar at 6 weeks and 6 months. Conclusion There were no significant differences between the Miniarc and Monarc, except for a significantly shorter Miniarc sling operating time.
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell
dc.rightsCopyright Information: © 2014 The Author. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research © 2014 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
dc.sourceJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
dc.titleRandomized prospective study comparing Monarc and Miniarc suburethral slings
dc.typeJournal article
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.citationvolume41
dc.date.issued2015
local.identifier.absfor111799 - Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified
local.identifier.ariespublicationU3488905xPUB5341
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.contributor.affiliationFoote, Andrew, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.bibliographicCitation.issue1
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage127
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage131
local.identifier.doi10.1111/jog.12493
dc.date.updated2016-02-24T10:07:05Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84920865947
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
01_Foote_Randomized_prospective_study_2015.pdf240.17 kBAdobe PDF    Request a copy


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  19 May 2020/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator