Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women

Lucky Saraswat*, Haroon Rehman, Muhammad Imran Omar, June D. Cody, Patricia Aluko, Cathryn M. A. Glazener

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background
Stress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence.

Objectives
To assess the eIectiveness of traditional suburethral sling procedures for treating stress urinary incontinence in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); we hand searched journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017) and the reference lists of relevant articles. On 23 January 2019, we updated this search; as a result, several additional reports of studies are awaiting classification.

Selection criteria
Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that assessed traditional suburethral slings for treating stress or mixed urinary incontinence.

Data collection and analysis
At least two review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias. When appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated: risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, odds ratio (OR) for continence and cure rates that were expected to be high, and mean diIerence (MD) for continuous data. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

Main results
A total of 34 trials involving 3244 women were included. Traditional slings were compared with 10 other treatments and with each other. We did not identify any trials comparing suburethral slings with no treatment or sham treatment, conservative management, anterior repair, or laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence. One trial compared traditional slings with bladder neck needle suspension, and another trial compared traditional slings
with single-incision slings. Both trials were too small to be informative
Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD001754
Number of pages256
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2020
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Jan 2020

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • *Suburethral Slings [adverse effects] [economics]
  • Polytetrafluoroethylene [therapeutic use]
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Urinary Incontinence [drug therapy] [surgery]
  • Urinary Incontinence, Stress [drug therapy] [*surgery]
  • Adult
  • Female
  • Humans
  • FREE VAGINAL TAPE
  • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL
  • QUALITY-OF-LIFE
  • AUTOLOGOUS FASCIAL SLINGS
  • TERM-FOLLOW-UP
  • URODYNAMIC STRESS-INCONTINENCE
  • BLADDER NECK SUSPENSION
  • SURGICAL-TREATMENT
  • BURCH COLPOSUSPENSION
  • RISK-FACTORS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this