Qing He1, Boya Li1, Chi Zhang1, Jie Zhang1, Deyi Luo2, Kunjie Wang3. 1. Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. luodeyi1985@163.com. 3. Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. wangkj@scu.edu.cn.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes between SNM and BTX in the treatment of refractory OAB. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were comprehensively searched from their inception to December 2019. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating OAB patients who underwent SNM and BTX were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. The outcomes, side effects, and cost-effectiveness values of both procedures were compared in meta-analysis. RESULTS: This review involved six articles (2629 patients). Specifically, three articles were based on the same trial, and the other studies were retrospective cohort studies. No significant difference was found in successful treatment between BTX and SNM at 6 months after procedures [risk ratio (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.39]. BTX exhibited a significantly higher total adverse event rate than SNM through 6 months (RR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.28-1.88). Patients suffered more urinary tract infection (UTI) risk under BTX injection at the early stage (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.10-2.25); however, the difference in UTI events was not significant between the two groups (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-2.25) during the period of 7-12 months postoperatively. Obviously, the short-term cost (1-2 years) of BTX was significantly lower than that of the SNM procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective; however, because of the high complication rate of BTX, it may not be a better way to treat refractory OAB than SNM, although BTX is more cost-effective for short-term treatment at present.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes between SNM and BTX in the treatment of refractory OAB. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were comprehensively searched from their inception to December 2019. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating OABpatients who underwent SNM and BTX were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. The outcomes, side effects, and cost-effectiveness values of both procedures were compared in meta-analysis. RESULTS: This review involved six articles (2629 patients). Specifically, three articles were based on the same trial, and the other studies were retrospective cohort studies. No significant difference was found in successful treatment between BTX and SNM at 6 months after procedures [risk ratio (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.39]. BTX exhibited a significantly higher total adverse event rate than SNM through 6 months (RR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.28-1.88). Patients suffered more urinary tract infection (UTI) risk under BTX injection at the early stage (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.10-2.25); however, the difference in UTI events was not significant between the two groups (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-2.25) during the period of 7-12 months postoperatively. Obviously, the short-term cost (1-2 years) of BTX was significantly lower than that of the SNM procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective; however, because of the high complication rate of BTX, it may not be a better way to treat refractory OAB than SNM, although BTX is more cost-effective for short-term treatment at present.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Steven Siegel; Karen Noblett; Jeffrey Mangel; Tomas L Griebling; Suzette E Sutherland; Erin T Bird; Craig Comiter; Daniel Culkin; Jason Bennett; Samuel Zylstra; Kellie Chase Berg; Fangyu Kan; Christopher P Irwin Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Cindy L Amundsen; Holly E Richter; Shawn A Menefee; Yuko M Komesu; Lily A Arya; W Thomas Gregory; Deborah L Myers; Halina M Zyczynski; Sandip Vasavada; Tracy L Nolen; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sender Herschorn; Alfred Kohan; Philip Aliotta; Kurt McCammon; Rajagopalan Sriram; Steven Abrams; Wayne Lam; Karel Everaert Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: W F Stewart; J B Van Rooyen; G W Cundiff; P Abrams; A R Herzog; R Corey; T L Hunt; A J Wein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Cindy L Amundsen; Yuko M Komesu; Christopher Chermansky; W Thomas Gregory; Deborah L Myers; Emily F Honeycutt; Sandip P Vasavada; John N Nguyen; Tracey S Wilson; Heidi S Harvie; Dennis Wallace Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 20.096