Skip to content

Cost-effectiveness of a Non-degradable Urethral Bulking Agent as compared to Mid-urethral Sling surgery in women with Stress Urinary Incontinence

Cost-effectiveness of a Non-degradable Urethral Bulking Agent as compared to Mid-urethral Sling surgery in women with Stress Urinary Incontinence - BAM study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Observational
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON49210
Enrollment
250
Registered
2016-11-22
Start date
2017-03-09
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-03-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

urinary incontinence

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Academisch Medisch Centrum
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 99 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: In order to be eligible to participate in this study, a subject must meet all of the following criteria: 1. Subject is at least 18 years of age 2. Subject has bothersome, moderate or severe SUI or stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence (Sandvik severity scale of 3 and higher). 3. Subject has decided to undergo a MUS-operation or treatment with UBA *Urolastic** 4. Subject has a positive result on the standardized cough stress test 5. Subject is willing and able to comply with the follow-up regime

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: A potential subject who meets any of the following criteria will be excluded from participation in this study: 1. Subject has predominating urge incontinence 2. Subject has a genital prolapse with a POP-Q score of point Aa or Ba >/=0 3. Subject has had previous treatment with UBA. 4. Subject is pregnant or intends to become pregnant during the study. 5. Subject has a untreated urinary tract infection 6. Subject has a bladder capacity of 150ml 8. Subject has a flow of

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The primary outcome of this study is subjective improvement assessed by the 1-item questionnaire *Patient Global Impression of Improvement* (PGI-I). The PGI-I has a 7-point Likert scale with a response range from *very much worse* to *very much better*. Improvement is considered to be clinically significant when answers to the PGI-I are either *much better* or *very much better*. Subjective improvement will be assessed at 4-6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
- Economic evaluation - Subjective cure - Objective cure - Morbidity and complications - Disease specific quality of life - Seksual function - Re-interventions - Patient preference

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)