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}
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.
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.