Julia Klein, Michelina Stoddard, Charles Rardin, Shawn Menefee, Art Sedrakyan, Stephanie Sansone, Bilal Chughtai
{"title":"子宫托在治疗女性压力性尿失禁中的作用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Julia Klein, Michelina Stoddard, Charles Rardin, Shawn Menefee, Art Sedrakyan, Stephanie Sansone, Bilal Chughtai","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Pessaries are an important conservative therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their utility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of pessaries for the treatment of SUI.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We searched for the terms \"stress urinary incontinence\" and \"pessar/y/ies/ium\" in PubMed, Embase, and Cinhal on June 10, 2020. Studies that characterized subjective and/or objective data were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for SUI were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed data quality and risk of bias according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies, including 376 patients, were included. In terms of subjective outcomes, 76% of 72 patients reported feeling continent after pessary treatment compared with 0% of 86 patients surveyed before pessary use (P < 0.0001). Both Urinary Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores decreased significantly by 46.7% (n = 155 baseline, n = 139 follow-up; P < 0.0001) and 67.8% (n = 139 baseline, n = 107 follow-up; P < 0.0001), respectively. Significant objective measures associated with pessary use included increased urethral closure pressure (n = 122; g = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 1.77; P < 0.049) and decreased pad weight (n = 129 baseline; n = 118 follow-up; g = -0.89; 95% CI, -1.986 to 0.19; P = 0.009). Adverse events significantly decreased at greater than 6 months follow-up compared with less than 6 months follow-up, including pain (31.5%, n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35; P = 0.0513) and discomfort (50%, n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41; P = 0.0268).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on both subjective and objective measures, pessaries are an effective conservative treatment option for SUI. This supports pessary use, though larger studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 6","pages":"e171-e178"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Pessaries in the Treatment of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Klein, Michelina Stoddard, Charles Rardin, Shawn Menefee, Art Sedrakyan, Stephanie Sansone, Bilal Chughtai\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Pessaries are an important conservative therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their utility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of pessaries for the treatment of SUI.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We searched for the terms \\\"stress urinary incontinence\\\" and \\\"pessar/y/ies/ium\\\" in PubMed, Embase, and Cinhal on June 10, 2020. Studies that characterized subjective and/or objective data were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for SUI were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed data quality and risk of bias according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies, including 376 patients, were included. In terms of subjective outcomes, 76% of 72 patients reported feeling continent after pessary treatment compared with 0% of 86 patients surveyed before pessary use (P < 0.0001). Both Urinary Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores decreased significantly by 46.7% (n = 155 baseline, n = 139 follow-up; P < 0.0001) and 67.8% (n = 139 baseline, n = 107 follow-up; P < 0.0001), respectively. Significant objective measures associated with pessary use included increased urethral closure pressure (n = 122; g = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 1.77; P < 0.049) and decreased pad weight (n = 129 baseline; n = 118 follow-up; g = -0.89; 95% CI, -1.986 to 0.19; P = 0.009). Adverse events significantly decreased at greater than 6 months follow-up compared with less than 6 months follow-up, including pain (31.5%, n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35; P = 0.0513) and discomfort (50%, n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41; P = 0.0268).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on both subjective and objective measures, pessaries are an effective conservative treatment option for SUI. This supports pessary use, though larger studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 6\",\"pages\":\"e171-e178\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Role of Pessaries in the Treatment of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Importance: Pessaries are an important conservative therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their utility.
Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of pessaries for the treatment of SUI.
Study design: We searched for the terms "stress urinary incontinence" and "pessar/y/ies/ium" in PubMed, Embase, and Cinhal on June 10, 2020. Studies that characterized subjective and/or objective data were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for SUI were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed data quality and risk of bias according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Results: Ten studies, including 376 patients, were included. In terms of subjective outcomes, 76% of 72 patients reported feeling continent after pessary treatment compared with 0% of 86 patients surveyed before pessary use (P < 0.0001). Both Urinary Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores decreased significantly by 46.7% (n = 155 baseline, n = 139 follow-up; P < 0.0001) and 67.8% (n = 139 baseline, n = 107 follow-up; P < 0.0001), respectively. Significant objective measures associated with pessary use included increased urethral closure pressure (n = 122; g = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 1.77; P < 0.049) and decreased pad weight (n = 129 baseline; n = 118 follow-up; g = -0.89; 95% CI, -1.986 to 0.19; P = 0.009). Adverse events significantly decreased at greater than 6 months follow-up compared with less than 6 months follow-up, including pain (31.5%, n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35; P = 0.0513) and discomfort (50%, n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41; P = 0.0268).
Conclusions: Based on both subjective and objective measures, pessaries are an effective conservative treatment option for SUI. This supports pessary use, though larger studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted.
期刊介绍:
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.