Comparing KIM to TVT Exact Sling

To assess to the non-inferiority of the retropubic Neomedic Knotless Incontinence Mesh (KIM) sling compared to the Gynecare Tension-free Vaginal Tape (TVT) Exact sling. Participants: Women 21 years or older with a diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) with objective evidence of SUI planning surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Procedures (methods): Patients will be randomized to receive either the Gynecare TVT Exact sling or the retropubic Neomedic KIM sling. Patients will be followed for 1 year postoperatively.

Midurethral slings (MUS) are recognized as a minimally invasive treatment of SUI. The retropubic route of MUS placement has a cure rate of 89.1% with long term subjective cure rates ranging from 51-88%. The Neomedic Knotless Incontinence Mesh (KIM) sling is a tension-free macroporous monofilament polypropylene knotless mesh designed to be resistant to elongation and deformation over time. The KIM sling also offers a reusable trocar, which results in less waste and cost- savings. KIM sling trocars are available for the retropubic route or trans-obturator (TOT) route. While studies have been performed comparing the TOT approach of the KIM sling to other slings, no studies have been performed to date with the retropubic (RP) approach. The RP and TOT approaches to MUS have been shown to be equivalent in the treatment of SUI. Since the same mesh material of the KIM sling is used for both the TOT and RP approach, it can be hypothesis that the RP route would show similar treatment success rates. A type 1 macroporous (> 75um) polypropylene mesh is the most appropriate material for vaginal implantation. However, literature has suggested that the design and weave of synthetic mesh material can also have a significant effect on efficacy and safety; therefore, the novel design of the KIM may be beneficial to reduce complications. If there is similar efficacy with the RP approach of the KIM sling to the TVT Exact, there will be benefit of reduced costs and the potential for less complications. With this study, the objective is to show non-inferiority of the KIM sling to the Gynecare TVT Exact.

Participants who are planning surgery for SUI are randomized to have placement of Gynecare TVT Exact sling and followed postoperatively for 1 year.

Participants who are planning surgery for SUI are randomized to have placement of retropubic Neomedic KIM sling and followed postoperatively for 1 year.

Treatment success is defined by a composite outcome of 1) response of No or "no bother" to question #3 on urogenital distress inventory-6 (UDI-6) validated questionnaire AND no retreatment of stress incontinence.

Treatment success is defined by a composite outcome of 1) response of No or "no bother" to question #3 on urogenital distress inventory-6 (UDI-6) validated questionnaire AND no retreatment of stress incontinence.

Inclusion Criteria: Women greater than or equal to 21 years based on medical chart review Diagnosis of SUI or mixed urinary incontinence based on medical chart review Objective evidence of SUI as indicated by positive cough stress test or urodynamic stress incontinence during urodynamic testing within the last year prior to enrollment. Medical chart will be reviewed. Planning surgery for SUI with/without pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery Exclusion Criteria: Current pregnancy, desire for future childbearing, less than or equal to 12 months postpartum at the time of enrollment Prior history of surgery for SUI based on medical chart review Bladder capacity <200 mL on Urodynamic testing or post-void residual (PVR) >150 mL on urodynamic testing or bladder scan. Non-ambulatory Current genitourinary fistula or urethral diverticulum based on pre-operative exam in the medical chart.

Deidentified individual data that supports the results will be shared beginning 9 to 36 months following publication provided the investigator who proposes to use the data has approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), or Research Ethics Board (REB), as applicable, and executes a data use/sharing agreement with University of North Carolina (UNC)

Padilla-Fernandez B, Garcia-Cenador MB, Gomez-Garcia A, Miron-Canelo JA, Gil-Vicente A, Silva-Abuin JM, Lorenzo-Gomez MF. Results of the surgical correction of urinary stress incontinence according to the type of transobturator tape utilized. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2013 Sep 26;85(3):149-53. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2013.3.149.

Imamura M, Hudson J, Wallace SA, MacLennan G, Shimonovich M, Omar MI, Javanbakht M, Moloney E, Becker F, Ternent L, Montgomery I, Mackie P, Saraswat L, Monga A, Vale L, Craig D, Brazzelli M. Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2019 Jun 5;365:l1842. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1842.

Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Aluko P, Ogah JA. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 31;7(7):CD006375. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub4.

Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM, Kenton K, Norton PA, Sirls LT, Kraus SR, Chai TC, Lemack GE, Dandreo KJ, Varner RE, Menefee S, Ghetti C, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Khandwala S, Rozanski TA, Johnson H, Schaffer J, Stoddard AM, Holley RL, Nager CW, Moalli P, Mueller E, Arisco AM, Corton M, Tennstedt S, Chang TD, Gormley EA, Litman HJ; Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 3;362(22):2066-76. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912658. Epub 2010 May 17.

Chapple CR, MacNeil S. The use of implanted materials for treating women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Urol. 2019 Jul;29(4):431-436. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000619.