治疗前列腺手术后尿失禁的男性吊带与人工尿道括约肌:系统回顾与荟萃分析。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q4 ANDROLOGY Translational andrology and urology Pub Date : 2024-08-31 Epub Date: 2024-08-23 DOI:10.21037/tau-24-107
Hai-Chao Chen, Peng-Cheng Hu, Jia-Tao Yao, Shi-Jie Ye, Qi Ma
{"title":"治疗前列腺手术后尿失禁的男性吊带与人工尿道括约肌:系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Hai-Chao Chen, Peng-Cheng Hu, Jia-Tao Yao, Shi-Jie Ye, Qi Ma","doi":"10.21037/tau-24-107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Urinary incontinence following prostate treatment (IPT) represents a significant complication that detrimentally impacts the quality of life for patients who have undergone prostate surgery. Presently, there is a scarcity of evidence regarding the preferred surgical techniques for IPT. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in the treatment of IPT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were extracted through electronic literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases until September 2023. Eligible studies included patients who underwent AUS or male sling procedures for IPT and had a follow-up duration exceeding 12 months. The primary end point was the success rate, with the secondary outcome focusing on complication rates. A fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included nine studies, involving a total of 1,350 participants. No statistically significant difference in success rates was found between AUS and male sling [odds ratio (OR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01]. In terms of the complication rate, there was no significant disparity between the two procedures (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-1.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings from this study indicated that male sling surgery yielded success and complication rates comparable to those of AUS. This suggests that male sling could serve as a viable alternative surgical option in the treatment of IPT.</p>","PeriodicalId":23270,"journal":{"name":"Translational andrology and urology","volume":"13 8","pages":"1416-1424"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11399032/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Male sling versus artificial urinary sphincter for the treatment of incontinence after prostate surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hai-Chao Chen, Peng-Cheng Hu, Jia-Tao Yao, Shi-Jie Ye, Qi Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/tau-24-107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Urinary incontinence following prostate treatment (IPT) represents a significant complication that detrimentally impacts the quality of life for patients who have undergone prostate surgery. Presently, there is a scarcity of evidence regarding the preferred surgical techniques for IPT. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in the treatment of IPT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were extracted through electronic literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases until September 2023. Eligible studies included patients who underwent AUS or male sling procedures for IPT and had a follow-up duration exceeding 12 months. The primary end point was the success rate, with the secondary outcome focusing on complication rates. A fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included nine studies, involving a total of 1,350 participants. No statistically significant difference in success rates was found between AUS and male sling [odds ratio (OR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01]. In terms of the complication rate, there was no significant disparity between the two procedures (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-1.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings from this study indicated that male sling surgery yielded success and complication rates comparable to those of AUS. This suggests that male sling could serve as a viable alternative surgical option in the treatment of IPT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational andrology and urology\",\"volume\":\"13 8\",\"pages\":\"1416-1424\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11399032/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational andrology and urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-107\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANDROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational andrology and urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANDROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:前列腺治疗(IPT)后尿失禁是一种严重的并发症,对接受前列腺手术的患者的生活质量造成了不利影响。目前,有关 IPT 首选手术技术的证据还很缺乏。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了男性吊带和人工尿道括约肌(AUS)治疗IPT的效果:通过在 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Embase 数据库中进行电子文献检索,提取截至 2023 年 9 月的数据。符合条件的研究包括接受 AUS 或男性吊带术治疗 IPT 的患者,随访时间超过 12 个月。主要终点是成功率,次要结果是并发症发生率。采用固定效应或随机效应模型计算汇总估计值及其95%置信区间(CI)。利用漏斗图和Egger回归检验评估了发表偏倚:荟萃分析包括九项研究,共有 1,350 人参与。AUS和男性吊衣在成功率上没有明显的统计学差异[几率比(OR):0.96,95% CI:0.91-1.01]。在并发症发生率方面,两种手术也没有明显差异(OR:0.87,95% CI:0.86-1.12):本研究结果表明,男性吊带手术的成功率和并发症发生率与AUS手术相当。结论:该研究结果表明,男性吊带术的成功率和并发症发生率与AUS相当,这表明男性吊带术可作为治疗IPT的一种可行的替代手术方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Male sling versus artificial urinary sphincter for the treatment of incontinence after prostate surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Background: Urinary incontinence following prostate treatment (IPT) represents a significant complication that detrimentally impacts the quality of life for patients who have undergone prostate surgery. Presently, there is a scarcity of evidence regarding the preferred surgical techniques for IPT. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in the treatment of IPT.

Methods: Data were extracted through electronic literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases until September 2023. Eligible studies included patients who underwent AUS or male sling procedures for IPT and had a follow-up duration exceeding 12 months. The primary end point was the success rate, with the secondary outcome focusing on complication rates. A fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test.

Results: The meta-analysis included nine studies, involving a total of 1,350 participants. No statistically significant difference in success rates was found between AUS and male sling [odds ratio (OR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01]. In terms of the complication rate, there was no significant disparity between the two procedures (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-1.12).

Conclusions: The findings from this study indicated that male sling surgery yielded success and complication rates comparable to those of AUS. This suggests that male sling could serve as a viable alternative surgical option in the treatment of IPT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: ranslational Andrology and Urology (Print ISSN 2223-4683; Online ISSN 2223-4691; Transl Androl Urol; TAU) is an open access, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal (quarterly published from Mar.2012 - Dec. 2014). The main focus of the journal is to describe new findings in the field of translational research of Andrology and Urology, provides current and practical information on basic research and clinical investigations of Andrology and Urology. Specific areas of interest include, but not limited to, molecular study, pathology, biology and technical advances related to andrology and urology. Topics cover range from evaluation, prevention, diagnosis, therapy, prognosis, rehabilitation and future challenges to urology and andrology. Contributions pertinent to urology and andrology are also included from related fields such as public health, basic sciences, education, sociology, and nursing.
期刊最新文献
Acquired buried penis: an observational study characterizing the variability in procedural codes reported during surgery. Build your own all-virtual multidisciplinary kidney stone clinic. Comparison of different processed products of Allium tuberosum Rottler for the treatment of mice asthenozoospermia. Cuproptosis-related signature predicts prognosis and indicates tumor immune infiltration in bladder cancer. Efficacy of iodized oil in emergency ultraselective arterial embolization for fatal massive hemorrhage due to renal angiomyolipoma: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
×
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