C M A Glazener1, K Cooper. 1. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, AB25 2ZD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder neck needle suspension is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence in women. About a third of adult women experience some urinary incontinence, and about a third of them have moderate or severe symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of needle suspension on stress or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (searched 18 September 2003). The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included needle suspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Two trial investigators provided additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials were identified which included 347 women having six different types of needle suspension procedures and 437 who received comparison interventions. Needle suspensions were more likely to fail than open abdominal retropubic suspension (higher subjective failure rate after the first year (91/313, 29% failed versus 47/297, 16% failed after open abdominal retropubic suspension: the relative risk (RR) was 2.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.72) although the difference in peri-operative complications was not significant (17/75, 23% versus 12/77, 16%; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.83): there were no significant differences for other outcome measures. This effect was seen in both women with primary incontinence and women with recurrent incontinence after failed primary operations. Needle suspensions may be as effective as anterior vaginal repair (46/128, 36% failed after needles versus 50/129, 39% after anterior repair; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.26) but there was little information about morbidity. Data for comparison with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a small and atypical population. No trials compared needle suspensions with conservative management, peri-urethral injections, sham or laparoscopic surgery. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck needle suspension surgery is probably not as good as open abdominal retropubic suspension for the treatment of primary and secondary urodynamic stress incontinence because the cure rates were lower in the trials reviewed. However, the reliability of the evidence was limited by poor quality and small trials. There was not enough information to comment on comparisons with suburethral sling operations. Although cure rates were similar after needle suspension compared with after anterior vaginal repair, the data were insufficient to be reliable and inadequate to compare morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Bladder neck needle suspension is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence in women. About a third of adult women experience some urinary incontinence, and about a third of them have moderate or severe symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of needle suspension on stress or mixed urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (searched 18 September 2003). The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included needle suspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by at least two reviewers. Two trial investigators provided additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials were identified which included 347 women having six different types of needle suspension procedures and 437 who received comparison interventions. Needle suspensions were more likely to fail than open abdominal retropubic suspension (higher subjective failure rate after the first year (91/313, 29% failed versus 47/297, 16% failed after open abdominal retropubic suspension: the relative risk (RR) was 2.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.72) although the difference in peri-operative complications was not significant (17/75, 23% versus 12/77, 16%; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.83): there were no significant differences for other outcome measures. This effect was seen in both women with primary incontinence and women with recurrent incontinence after failed primary operations. Needle suspensions may be as effective as anterior vaginal repair (46/128, 36% failed after needles versus 50/129, 39% after anterior repair; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.26) but there was little information about morbidity. Data for comparison with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a small and atypical population. No trials compared needle suspensions with conservative management, peri-urethral injections, sham or laparoscopic surgery. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck needle suspension surgery is probably not as good as open abdominal retropubic suspension for the treatment of primary and secondary urodynamic stress incontinence because the cure rates were lower in the trials reviewed. However, the reliability of the evidence was limited by poor quality and small trials. There was not enough information to comment on comparisons with suburethral sling operations. Although cure rates were similar after needle suspension compared with after anterior vaginal repair, the data were insufficient to be reliable and inadequate to compare morbidity.
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Mihir P Gandhi; Aparna D Shah; Jatin Y Shah; Rebekah G Fulton; Alison C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Vivienne Kirchin; Tobias Page; Phil E Keegan; Kofi Om Atiemo; June D Cody; Samuel McClinton; Patricia Aluko Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-07-25