Comparison of Different Invasive Devices for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy.

IF 1.8 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Advances in Urology Pub Date : 2022-06-21 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/8736249
Stefano Salciccia, Pietro Viscuso, Giulio Bevilacqua, Antonio Tufano, Paolo Casale, Ettore De Berardinis, Giovanni Battista Di Pierro, Susanna Cattarino, Alessandro Gentilucci, Francesca Lourdes Lia, Di Giulio Ivan, Davide Rosati, Francesco Del Giudice, Alessandro Sciarra, Gianna Mariotti
{"title":"Comparison of Different Invasive Devices for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy.","authors":"Stefano Salciccia,&nbsp;Pietro Viscuso,&nbsp;Giulio Bevilacqua,&nbsp;Antonio Tufano,&nbsp;Paolo Casale,&nbsp;Ettore De Berardinis,&nbsp;Giovanni Battista Di Pierro,&nbsp;Susanna Cattarino,&nbsp;Alessandro Gentilucci,&nbsp;Francesca Lourdes Lia,&nbsp;Di Giulio Ivan,&nbsp;Davide Rosati,&nbsp;Francesco Del Giudice,&nbsp;Alessandro Sciarra,&nbsp;Gianna Mariotti","doi":"10.1155/2022/8736249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare different forms of invasive treatments for postradical prostatectomy (RP) urinary incontinence (UI) in terms of quantitative and qualitative parameters and continence recovery rate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We distinguished five categories of treatment: <i>A</i> = bulking agents, <i>B</i> = fixed slings, <i>C</i> = adjustable slings, <i>D</i> = circumferential compressor devices (artificial sphincter), and <i>E</i> = noncircumferential compressor devices (ProACT). A literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We performed a cumulative meta-analysis to explore the trend in the effect sizes across groups at postoperative follow-up. We compared the available treatment arms using standardized mean difference (SMD) and event rate (ER) for questionnaire results, number of pads/day, and percentage of pad-free patients. <i>Evidence synthesis</i>. 36 clinical trials were selected. At baseline, in the different populations, mean number of pad-day varied from 1.1 to 8.8, 24-hour pad weight varied extremely from 17.3 <i>g</i> to 747.0 <i>g</i>, and mean ICIQ-UI-SF questionnaire score varied from 4.8 to 18.6. Considering a random effect model among eligible studies, ER of continence recovery was 0.33 (95% CI -0.12-0.78), 0.63 (95% CI 0.55-0.71), 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.72), 0.50 (95% CI 0.34-0.66), and 0.53 (95%CI 0.36-0.70), respectively, in groups A, B, C, D, and E (<i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> 85.87%; <i>Q</i> 249.82-<i>P</i> > 0.01) (test of group differences <i>P</i>=0.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our analysis, the use of adjustable and fixed slings is associated with the highest whereas the use of bulking agents is associated with the lowest recovery rate of continence after treatment. Results are conditioned by an elevated rate of heterogeneity in part explained with a high variability of consistence in urinary leakage at baseline among populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7490,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9239822/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8736249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: To compare different forms of invasive treatments for postradical prostatectomy (RP) urinary incontinence (UI) in terms of quantitative and qualitative parameters and continence recovery rate.

Methods: We distinguished five categories of treatment: A = bulking agents, B = fixed slings, C = adjustable slings, D = circumferential compressor devices (artificial sphincter), and E = noncircumferential compressor devices (ProACT). A literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We performed a cumulative meta-analysis to explore the trend in the effect sizes across groups at postoperative follow-up. We compared the available treatment arms using standardized mean difference (SMD) and event rate (ER) for questionnaire results, number of pads/day, and percentage of pad-free patients. Evidence synthesis. 36 clinical trials were selected. At baseline, in the different populations, mean number of pad-day varied from 1.1 to 8.8, 24-hour pad weight varied extremely from 17.3 g to 747.0 g, and mean ICIQ-UI-SF questionnaire score varied from 4.8 to 18.6. Considering a random effect model among eligible studies, ER of continence recovery was 0.33 (95% CI -0.12-0.78), 0.63 (95% CI 0.55-0.71), 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.72), 0.50 (95% CI 0.34-0.66), and 0.53 (95%CI 0.36-0.70), respectively, in groups A, B, C, D, and E (I 2 85.87%; Q 249.82-P > 0.01) (test of group differences P=0.22).

Conclusion: In our analysis, the use of adjustable and fixed slings is associated with the highest whereas the use of bulking agents is associated with the lowest recovery rate of continence after treatment. Results are conditioned by an elevated rate of heterogeneity in part explained with a high variability of consistence in urinary leakage at baseline among populations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同侵入性装置治疗根治性前列腺切除术后尿失禁的比较。
目的:比较不同侵入治疗方式对前列腺切除术后尿失禁的定性、定量参数及失禁恢复率的影响。方法:我们将治疗分为5类:A =膨胀剂,B =固定吊带,C =可调节吊带,D =环向压缩装置(人工括约肌),E =非环向压缩装置(ProACT)。按照PRISMA指南进行文献检索。我们进行了一项累积荟萃分析,以探讨术后随访各组效应量的趋势。我们使用标准化平均差(SMD)和事件率(ER)对问卷调查结果、每天使用护垫的数量和无护垫患者的百分比进行比较。证据合成。选取36个临床试验。基线时,不同人群的平均垫天数从1.1天到8.8天不等,24小时垫重从17.3 g到747.0 g不等,ICIQ-UI-SF问卷平均得分从4.8到18.6不等。考虑到符合条件的研究中的随机效应模型,a、B、C、D和E组的失禁恢复ER分别为0.33 (95%CI -0.12-0.78)、0.63 (95%CI 0.55-0.71)、0.65 (95%CI 0.58-0.72)、0.50 (95%CI 0.34-0.66)和0.53 (95%CI 0.36-0.70) (I 2 85.87%;q249.82 -P > 0.01)(组间差异检验P=0.22)。结论:在我们的分析中,使用可调节和固定吊带的失禁率最高,而使用填充剂的失禁率最低。结果受到异质性率升高的影响,部分原因是人群中基线尿漏一致性的高度变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Urology
Advances in Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Urology is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes state-of-the-art reviews and original research papers of wide interest in all fields of urology. The journal strives to provide publication of important manuscripts to the widest possible audience worldwide, without the constraints of expensive, hard-to-access, traditional bound journals. Advances in Urology is designed to improve publication access of both well-established urologic scientists and less well-established writers, by allowing interested scientists worldwide to participate fully.
期刊最新文献
A Review of Electronic Early Warning Systems for Acute Kidney Injury. Patient Demographics and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events after Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Complications and Influential Perioperative Factors Associated with SpaceOAR Hydrogel Placement. Photodynamic Therapeutic Effect during 5-Aminolevulinic Acid-Mediated Photodynamic Diagnosis-Assisted Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors. Effects of the Surgical Ligation of the Ureter in Different Locations on the Kidney over Time in the Rat Model.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1