Randomized trial of a single incision versus an outside-in transobturator midurethral sling in women with stress urinary incontinence: 12 month results

Lee, Joseph K.-S.; Rosamilia, Anna; Dwyer, Peter; Lim, Yujin; Müller, Reinhold

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.040

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data searches were performed in Google Scholar, PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Finally, 29 studies , including a total of 2 986 women, were selected for the meta‐analysis. An SIMS was defined as a midurethral sling placed through a single vaginal incision without skin incision, and included the Mini‐Arc, Contasure‐Needleless, Ophira, tissue fixation system (TFS) and Ajust.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcome of single‐incision slings, excluding TVT‐Secur, vs standard slings in the surgical management of stress incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Kim

Park

et al. 2018

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present paper was to assess and compare the long-term efficacy and safety of single-incision mini-slings (SIMSs), except tension-free vaginal tape (TVT)-Secur, with standard midurethral slings (SMUSs) for female stress urinary incontinence through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these two surgical methods. A literature review of all RCTs comparing SIMSs (Mini-Arc, Contasure-Needleless, Ophira, Tissue Fixation System and Ajust), except TVT-Secur, with SMUSs was performed. The Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register databases were reviewed. We retrieved 29 RCTs (including a total of 2 986 patients) that compared SIMSs, except TVT-Secur, with SMUSs. Meta-analysis of long-term results showed no significant difference in the patient-reported cure rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.60); however, we found that SMUSs had a significantly superior objective cure rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99; P = 0.04). SIMSs were associated with a significantly shorter operation time, lower immediate postoperative pain based on a visual analogue scale score, lower intra-operative blood loss, and lower postoperative voiding dysfunction. The meta-analysis showed clear evidence of the superiority of SMUSs over SIMSs, except TVT-Secur, in terms of the objective cure rate, after long-term follow-up; however, SIMSs were superior with respect to immediate postoperative pain, intra-operative blood loss, and postoperative voiding dysfunction.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcome of single‐incision slings, excluding TVT‐Secur, vs standard slings in the surgical management of stress incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Kim

Park

et al. 2018

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in that study, there was a higher but non‐significant trend toward repeat incontinence surgery. In a recent RCT comparing SIMS to outside‐in TOT with 12 months follow‐up, there was no difference in subjective or objective outcome . Although SIMS appear to be effective in the short‐term studies and with report similarities to other types of MUS, at this time, long‐term outcomes are lacking …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent RCT comparing SIMS to outside-in TOT with 12 months follow-up, there was no difference in subjective or objective outcome. 52 Although SIMS appear to be effective in the short-term studies and with report similarities to other types of MUS, at this time, longterm outcomes are lacking. [53][54][55] There is a limited number of good quality studies with longterm follow-up comparing MUS to Burch colposuspension or PVS or Burch colposuspension to PVS.…”

Section: Surgical Treatment Of Urinary Stress Incontinence Under Specmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and surgery for stress urinary incontinence: A FIGO working group report

Medina

Costantini

Petri

et al. 2016

Neurourology and Urodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 6 of the 7 cases, at least 1 record met the inclusion criteria of the systematic review [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Reviewer screening time took on average between 30 and 40 minutes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Duffy

Kock

Misso

et al. 2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review.Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid).Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review.Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews. When conducting comprehensive literature searches for systematic reviews of health care interventions, searchers almost always include one bibliographic database, MEDLINE. MEDLINE content can be searched via several search interfaces, the majority of which are provided by fee-based subscription services (e.g., Ovid, EBSCO, or ProQuest), although it can be accessed for free using PubMed. When searching for systematic reviews, PubMed has been shown to have a higher retrieval rate than fee-based versions of MEDLINE, such as Ovid [1]. PubMed enables users to search MEDLINE, PubMed citations that will never be indexed on MEDLINE, and other sources, such as online books. Despite this and the fact that PubMed is freely available, many information specialists prefer to search using sophisticated interfaces (usually fee-based) that enable the design of complex search strategies.PubMed has relatively limited search capabilities. For example, proximity searching is not possible and truncation is limited to the first 600 variations. The lack of proximity search operators can be a significant hindrance when attempting to conduct searches for systematic reviews in PubMed, as phrase searching or use of the Boolean ''AND'' to combine terms are the only alternatives. This can produce a search strategy that is either too precise when using phrases or too sensitive when using the Boolean ''AND.'' Searching MEDLINE via more sophisticated interfaces enables much greater flexibility when conducting searches for systematic reviews, allowing information specialists to find a better balance between precision and sensitivity that is not possible in PubMed.Migration of records from PubMed into fee-based subscription services is usually quite timely. Studies indicate that indexed MEDLINE records and

show abstract

Randomized trial of a single incision versus an outside-in transobturator midurethral sling in women with stress urinary incontinence: 12 month results

Cited by 32 publications

References 30 publications

Clinical outcome of single‐incision slings, excluding TVT‐Secur, vs standard slings in the surgical management of stress incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical outcome of single‐incision slings, excluding TVT‐Secur, vs standard slings in the surgical management of stress incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Evaluation and surgery for stress urinary incontinence: A FIGO working group report

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About