XXXX vs Monarc: a comparative study.

@entity1 @entity409 @entity365
Following the success of the @entity365 ( @entity365 ), there has been considerable interest in technique modifications such as the transobturator approach for implant placement. We attempted to elucidate possible anatomical and clinical differences between the two methods in a retrospective cohort study. One hundred and fourteen @entity1 who had undergone @entity365 or Monarc implantation were assessed by or under the supervision of the senior author, with identical tensioning technique. They were followed up by an interview, uroflowmetry, and translabial 3D ultrasound. There were significant differences for @entity1 satisfaction (P=0.013), subjective overall cure/improvement (P=0.0018), and the symptom of poor stream (P=0.03), all favoring the Monarc group. On imaging Monarc tapes appeared more proximal at rest (P=0.006) and Valsalva (P=0.002) and remained further from the symphysis pubis on Valsalva (P=0.01). At 9 months follow-up, there was no significant difference as regards to cure rates for stress incontinence between the two suburethral slings. Monarc tapes are located more proximally and may be less obstructive, judging from a lower incidence of symptoms of @entity409 . @entity1 satisfaction and overall subjective cure/improvement were higher after Monarc. In summary, the Monarc is an effective @entity365 alternative, achieving cure of stress incontinence by similar means. It may be less obstructive, resulting in improved @entity1 satisfaction.
