Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women

Abigail A Ford, Lynne Rogerson, June D Cody, Patricia Aluko, Joseph A Ogah, Abigail A Ford, Lynne Rogerson, June D Cody, Patricia Aluko, Joseph A Ogah

Abstract

Background: Urinary incontinence is a very common and debilitating problem affecting about 50% of women at some point in their lives. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a predominant cause in 30% to 80% of these women imposing significant health and economic burden on society and the women affected. Mid-urethral sling (MUS) operations are a recognised minimally invasive surgical treatment for SUI. MUS involves the passage of a small strip of tape through either the retropubic or obturator space, with entry or exit points at the lower abdomen or groin, respectively. This review does not include single-incision slings.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effects of mid-urethral sling (MUS) operations for the treatment of SUI, urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) in women.

Search methods: We searched: Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (including: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov) (searched 26 June 2014); Embase Classic (January 1947 to Week 25 2014); WHO ICTRP (searched 30 June 2014); reference lists.

Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials amongst women with SUI, USI or MUI, in which both trial arms involve a MUS operation.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and extracted data from included trials.

Main results: We included 81 trials that evaluated 12,113 women. We assessed the quality of evidence for outcomes using the GRADE assessment tool; the quality of most outcomes was moderate, mainly due to risk of bias or imprecision.Fifty-five trials with data contributed by 8652 women compared the use of the transobturator route (TOR) and retropubic route (RPR). There is moderate quality evidence that in the short term (up to one year) the rate of subjective cure of TOR and RPR are similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00; 36 trials, 5514 women; moderate quality evidence) ranging from 62% to 98% in the TOR group, and from 71% to 97% in the RPR group. Short-term objective cure was similar in the TOR and RPR groups (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00; 40 trials, 6145 women). Fewer trials reported medium-term (one to five years) and longer-term (over five years) data, but subjective cure was similar between the groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 5 trials, 683 women; low quality evidence; and RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12; 4 trials, 714 women; moderate quality evidence, respectively). In the long term, subjective cure rates ranged from 43% to 92% in the TOR group, and from 51% to 88% in the RPR group.MUS procedures performed using the RPR had higher morbidity when compared to TOR, though the overall rate of adverse events remained low. The rate of bladder perforation was lower after TOR (0.6% versus 4.5%; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.20; 40 trials, 6372 women; moderate quality evidence). Major vascular/visceral injury, mean operating time, operative blood loss and length of hospital stay were lower with TOR.Postoperative voiding dysfunction was less frequent following TOR (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.65; 37 trials, 6200 women; moderate quality evidence). Overall rates of groin pain were higher in the TOR group (6.4% versus 1.3%; RR 4.12, 95% CI 2.71 to 6.27; 18 trials, 3221 women; moderate quality evidence) whereas suprapubic pain was lower in the TOR group (0.8% versus 2.9%; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78); both being of short duration. The overall rate of vaginal tape erosion/exposure/extrusion was low in both groups: 24/1000 instances with TOR compared with 21/1000 for RPR (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.65; 31 trials, 4743 women; moderate quality evidence). There were only limited data to inform the need for repeat incontinence surgery in the long term, but it was more likely in the TOR group than in the RPR group (RR 8.79, 95% CI 3.36 to 23.00; 4 trials, 695 women; low quality evidence).A retropubic bottom-to-top route was more effective than top-to-bottom route for subjective cure (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.19; 3 trials, 477 women; moderate quality evidence). It incurred significantly less voiding dysfunction, and led to fewer bladder perforations and vaginal tape erosions.Short-and medium-term subjective cure rates between transobturator tapes passed using a medial-to-lateral as opposed to a lateral-to-medial approach were similar (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; 6 trials, 759 women; moderate quality evidence, and RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23; 2 trials, 235 women; moderate quality evidence). There was moderate quality evidence that voiding dysfunction was more frequent in the medial-to-lateral group (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.88; 8 trials, 1121 women; moderate quality evidence), but vaginal perforation was less frequent in the medial-to-lateral route (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53; 3 trials, 541 women). Due to the very low quality of the evidence, it is unclear whether the lower rates of vaginal epithelial perforation affected vaginal tape erosion (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.09; 7 trials, 1087 women; very low quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Mid-urethral sling operations have been the most extensively researched surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women and have a good safety profile. Irrespective of the routes traversed, they are highly effective in the short and medium term, and accruing evidence demonstrates their effectiveness in the long term. This review illustrates their positive impact on improving the quality of life of women with SUI. However, a brief economic commentary (BEC) identified three studies suggesting that transobturator may be more cost-effective compared with retropubic. Fewer adverse events occur with employment of a transobturator approach with the exception of groin pain. When comparing transobturator techniques of a medial-to-lateral versus a lateral-to-medial insertion, there is no evidence to support the use of one approach over the other. However, a bottom-to-top route was more effective than top-to-bottom route for retropubic tapes.A salient point illustrated throughout this review is the need for reporting of longer-term outcome data from the numerous existing trials. This would substantially increase the evidence base and provide clarification regarding uncertainties about long-term effectiveness and adverse event profile.

Conflict of interest statement

Abigail A Ford: For the 2015 review: Johnson and Johnson for part sponsorship to attend International Urogynaecology Association conference (IUGA), Washington, 2014. For the 2017 BECs review update: Astellas: money given towards travel costs to IUGA meeting 2016, no other financial benefit. This had no impact on this current work.

Lynne Rogerson: For the 2015 review: Astellas: Paid in full for attendance at European Urogynaecological Association meeting in Berlin. For the 2017 BECs review update: registration fee for ICS Rio 2014 paid by Boston Scientific for October 2014 ‐ paid directly to the conference but nothing to do with Cochrane.

June D Cody: For the 2015 review: nothing to declare. For the 2017 BECs review update: None known.

Joseph Ogah: For the 2015 review: part sponsorship for conference registration fees and speaker honoraria by Astellas UK; sponsored to attend workshops by Johnson and Johnson and Speciality European Pharma. All these sponsorships are unrelated to this review. For the 2017 BECs review update: None known.

Patricia Aluko: For the 2017 BECs review: This project, to add Brief Economic Commentaries to our 'Surgery for UI in women' reviews, was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via the Cochrane Review Incentive Scheme 2016, to the Cochrane Incontinence Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic (RPR) route, outcome: 1.1 Subjective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year)
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic (RPR) route, outcome: 1.16 Bladder or urethral perforation
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic (RPR) route, outcome: 1.17 Voiding dysfunction
7
7
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic (RPR) route, outcome: 1.22 Vaginal tape erosion
8
8
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic (RPR) route, outcome: 1.24 Groin pain
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 1 Subjective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 2 Subjective cure and improvement (short term, ≤ 1 year).
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 3 Subjective cure (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 4 Subjective cure (long term, > 5 years).
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 5 Subjective cure and improvement (long term, > 5 years).
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 6 Objective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 7 Objective cure and improvement (short term, ≤ 1 year).
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 8 Objective cure (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 9 Objective cure (long term, > 5 years).
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 10 Operative time (minutes).
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 11 Operative blood loss (ml).
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 12 Length of hospital stay (days).
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 13 Time to return to normal activity level (weeks).
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 14 Perioperative complications.
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 15 Major vascular or visceral injury.
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 16 Bladder or urethral perforation.
1.17. Analysis
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 17 Voiding dysfunction.
1.18. Analysis
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 18 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence (short term, ≤ 1 year).
1.19. Analysis
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 19 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
1.20. Analysis
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 20 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence (long term, > 5 years).
1.21. Analysis
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 21 Detrusor overactivity.
1.22. Analysis
1.22. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 22 Vaginal tape erosion.
1.23. Analysis
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 23 Bladder/urethral erosion.
1.24. Analysis
1.24. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 24 Groin pain.
1.25. Analysis
1.25. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 25 Suprapubic pain.
1.26. Analysis
1.26. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 26 Repeat incontinence surgery (short term, ≤ 1 year).
1.27. Analysis
1.27. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 27 Repeat incontinence surgery (medium term , 1 to 5 years).
1.28. Analysis
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1 Transobturator (TOR) versus retropubic route (RPR), Outcome 28 Repeat incontinence surgery (long term > 5 years).
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 1 Subjective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 2 Objective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 3 Operative time (minutes).
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 4 Length of hospital stay (days).
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 5 Perioperative complications.
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 6 Bladder or urethral perforation.
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 7 Voiding dysfunction.
2.8. Analysis
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 8 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence.
2.9. Analysis
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 9 Detrusor overactivity.
2.10. Analysis
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 10 Vaginal tape erosion.
2.11. Analysis
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2 Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach, Outcome 11 QoL specific.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 1 Subjective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 2 Subjective cure and improvement (short term, ≤ 1 year).
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 3 Subjective cure (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 4 Subjective cure and improvement (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 5 Objective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 6 Objective cure and improvement (short term, ≤ 1 year).
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 7 Operative time (minutes).
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 8 Operative blood loss (ml).
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 9 Length of hospital stay (days).
3.10. Analysis
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 10 Time to return to normal activity level.
3.11. Analysis
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 11 Perioperative complications.
3.12. Analysis
3.12. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 12 Major vascular or visceral injury.
3.13. Analysis
3.13. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 13 Vaginal perforation/injury.
3.14. Analysis
3.14. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 14 Bladder or urethral perforation.
3.15. Analysis
3.15. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 15 Voiding dysfunction.
3.16. Analysis
3.16. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 16 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence.
3.17. Analysis
3.17. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 17 Detrusor overactivity.
3.18. Analysis
3.18. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 18 Vaginal tape erosion.
3.19. Analysis
3.19. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 19 Groin/thigh pain.
3.20. Analysis
3.20. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 20 Repeat incontinence surgery.
3.21. Analysis
3.21. Analysis
Comparison 3 Obturator medial‐to‐lateral approach versus obturator lateral‐to‐medial approach, Outcome 21 QoL specific.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 1 Subjective cure (short term, up to 1 year).
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 2 Subjective cure and improvement (short term, up to 1 year).
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 3 Subjective cure (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 4 Objective cure (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 5 Objective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
4.6. Analysis
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 6 Operative time (minutes).
4.7. Analysis
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 7 Operative blood loss (ml).
4.8. Analysis
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 8 Length of hospital stay (days).
4.9. Analysis
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 9 Perioperative complications.
4.10. Analysis
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 10 Major vascular or visceral injury.
4.11. Analysis
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 11 Bladder/urethral perforation.
4.12. Analysis
4.12. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 12 Voiding dysfunction.
4.13. Analysis
4.13. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 13 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence.
4.14. Analysis
4.14. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 14 Vaginal tape erosion.
4.15. Analysis
4.15. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 15 Bladder/urethral erosion.
4.16. Analysis
4.16. Analysis
Comparison 4 One method of mid‐urethral tape insertion versus another method, same route, Outcome 16 Groin pain.
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 1 Subjective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 2 Subjective cure (medium term, 1 to 5 years).
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 3 Objective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year).
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 4 Operative time (minutes).
5.5. Analysis
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 5 Length of hospital stay (days).
5.6. Analysis
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 6 Perioperative complications.
5.7. Analysis
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 7 Major vascular or visceral injury.
5.8. Analysis
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 8 Bladder or urethral perforation.
5.9. Analysis
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 9 Voiding dysfunction.
5.10. Analysis
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 10 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence.
5.11. Analysis
5.11. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 11 Detrusor overactivity.
5.12. Analysis
5.12. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 12 Vaginal tape erosion.
5.13. Analysis
5.13. Analysis
Comparison 5 One type of tape material versus another, Outcome 13 QoL specific (ICIQ).

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe