Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore1,2, Enrico Finazzi Agrò3, Marco Soligo4, Vincenzo Li Marzi5, Alex Digesu6, Maurizio Serati7. 1. Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, Italy. ulrm@me.com. 2. Department of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DiNOGMI), University of Genova, Genova, Italy. ulrm@me.com. 3. Department of Urology, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Women, Mothers and Neonates, Buzzi Children's Hospital, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. 6. Department of Urogynaecology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Del Ponte Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES: One of the most relevant topics in the field of pelvic floor dysfunction treatment is the long-term efficacy of surgical procedures, in particular, the use of prosthesis. Hence, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of midurethral sling (MUS) procedures for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. METHODS: This systematic review is based on material searched and obtained via PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library between January 2000 and October 2016. Peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles evaluating the long-term (≥5 years) efficacy and safety of MUS in women affected by SUI were included. RESULTS: A total of 5,592 articles were found after the search, and excluding duplicate publications, 1,998 articles were available for the review process. Among these studies, 11 RCTs (0.6%) and 5 non-RCTs (0.3%) could be included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Objective and subjective cumulative cure rates for retropubic technique (TVT) and transobturator tape (TOT; both out-in and in-out) were 61.6% (95% CI: 58.5-64.8%) and 76.5% (95% CI: 73.8-79.2%), and 64.4% (95% CI: 61.4-67.4%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 78.9-83.7%) respectively. When considering TOT using the out-in technique (TOT-OI) and TOT using the in-out technique (TVT-O) the objective and subjective cumulative cure rates were 57.2% (95% CI: 53.7-60.7%) and 81.6% (95% CI: 78.8-84.4%), and 68.8% (95% CI: 64.9-72.7%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 77.9-84.7%) respectively. Furthermore, this article demonstrates that both TVT and TOT are associated with similar long-term objectives (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.53], I 2 = 67%, p = 0.62) and subjective (OR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.46-1.55], I 2 = 68%, p = 0.58) cure rates. Similarly, no significant difference has been observed between TTOT-OI and TVT-O) in objective (OR: 3.03 [95% CI: 0.97-9.51], I 2 = 76%, p = 0.06) and subjective (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 0.40-8.48], I 2 = 88%, p = 0.43) cure rates. In addition, this study also shows that there was no significant difference in the complication rates for all comparisons: TVT versus TOT (OR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.54-1.28], I 2 = 0%, p = 0.40), TOT-OI versus TVT-O (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.17-3.46], I 2 = 86%, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Independent of the technique adopted, findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the treatment of SUI with MUS might be similarly effective and safe at long-term follow-up.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESES: One of the most relevant topics in the field of pelvic floor dysfunction treatment is the long-term efficacy of surgical procedures, in particular, the use of prosthesis. Hence, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of midurethral sling (MUS) procedures for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. METHODS: This systematic review is based on material searched and obtained via PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library between January 2000 and October 2016. Peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles evaluating the long-term (≥5 years) efficacy and safety of MUS in women affected by SUI were included. RESULTS: A total of 5,592 articles were found after the search, and excluding duplicate publications, 1,998 articles were available for the review process. Among these studies, 11 RCTs (0.6%) and 5 non-RCTs (0.3%) could be included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Objective and subjective cumulative cure rates for retropubic technique (TVT) and transobturator tape (TOT; both out-in and in-out) were 61.6% (95% CI: 58.5-64.8%) and 76.5% (95% CI: 73.8-79.2%), and 64.4% (95% CI: 61.4-67.4%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 78.9-83.7%) respectively. When considering TOT using the out-in technique (TOT-OI) and TOT using the in-out technique (TVT-O) the objective and subjective cumulative cure rates were 57.2% (95% CI: 53.7-60.7%) and 81.6% (95% CI: 78.8-84.4%), and 68.8% (95% CI: 64.9-72.7%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 77.9-84.7%) respectively. Furthermore, this article demonstrates that both TVT and TOT are associated with similar long-term objectives (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.53], I 2 = 67%, p = 0.62) and subjective (OR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.46-1.55], I 2 = 68%, p = 0.58) cure rates. Similarly, no significant difference has been observed between TTOT-OI and TVT-O) in objective (OR: 3.03 [95% CI: 0.97-9.51], I 2 = 76%, p = 0.06) and subjective (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 0.40-8.48], I 2 = 88%, p = 0.43) cure rates. In addition, this study also shows that there was no significant difference in the complication rates for all comparisons: TVT versus TOT (OR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.54-1.28], I 2 = 0%, p = 0.40), TOT-OI versus TVT-O (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.17-3.46], I 2 = 86%, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Independent of the technique adopted, findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the treatment of SUI with MUS might be similarly effective and safe at long-term follow-up.
Authors: Giovanni A Tommaselli; Costantino Di Carlo; Carmen Formisano; Annamaria Fabozzi; Carmine Nappi Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Matthew D Barber; Christopher R Chapple; Elisabetta Costantini; Vincenzo Ficarra; Paul Hilton; Carl G Nilsson; David Waltregny Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mohammed S ElSheemy; Hesham Fathy; Hussein A Hussein; Ragheb Elsergany; Eman A Hussein Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Zainab A Khan; Arjun Nambiar; Roland Morley; Christopher R Chapple; Simon J Emery; Malcolm G Lucas Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Andrea Braga; Giorgio Caccia; Giovanni Ruggeri; Luca Regusci; Andrea Papadia; Maurizio Serati Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Ipek Gurol-Urganci; Rebecca S Geary; Jil B Mamza; Jonathan Duckett; Dina El-Hamamsy; Lucia Dolan; Douglas G Tincello; Jan van der Meulen Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ivan Ignjatovic; Milan Potic; Dragoslav Basic; Ljubomir Dinic; Aleksandar Skakic Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Andrea Cocci; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Giorgio Ivan Russo; Maria Angela Cerruto; Martina Milanesi; Luis G Medina; Sebastiano Cimino; Walter Artibani; Giuseppe Morgia; Marco Carini; Vincenzo Li Marzi Journal: Int Neurourol J Date: 2017-12-31 Impact factor: 2.835
Authors: Samra Jasarevic; Doroteja Jankovic; Georg C Hutterer; Regina Riedl; Georg P Pichler; Karl Pummer; Günter Primus Journal: Urol Int Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 2.089