Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Revisão Acesso aberto Produção Nacional Revisado por pares

BIBTEX RIS

Surgical Treatment for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018; Thieme Medical Publishers (Germany); Volume: 40; Issue: 08 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1055/s-0038-1667184

1806-9339

Letícia Maria de Oliveira, Márcia Maria Dias, Sérgio Brasileiro Martins, Jorge Milhem Haddad, Manoel Joâo Batista Castello Girão, Rodrigo Aquino Castro,

Hernia repair and management

Objective To compare surgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence in terms of efficiency and complications. Data Sources We searched the MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases using the terms stress urinary incontinence, surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence and sling. Selection of Studies Forty-eight studies were selected, which amounted to a total of 6,881 patients with scores equal to or higher than 3 in the Jadad scale. Data Collection Each study was read by one of the authors, added to a standardized table and checked by a second author. We extracted data on intervention details, follow-up time, the results of treatment and adverse events. Data Synthesis Comparing retropubic versus transobturator slings, the former was superior for both objective (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.54) and subjective (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02–1.48) cures. Between minislings versus other slings, there was a difference favoring other slings for subjective cure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39–0.86). Between pubovaginal sling versus Burch surgery, there was a difference for both objective (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.50–2.77) and subjective (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10–2.44) cures, favoring pubovaginal sling. There was no difference in the groups: midurethral slings versus Burch, pubovaginal sling versus midurethral slings, transobturator slings, minislings versus other slings (objective cure). Retropubic and pubovaginal slings are more retentionist. Retropubic slings have more bladder perforation, and transobturator slings, more leg and groin pain, neurological lesion and vaginal perforation. Conclusion Pubovaginal slings are superior to Burch colposuspension surgery but exhibit more retention. Retropubic slings are superior to transobturator slings, with more adverse events. Other slings are superior to minislings in the subjective aspect. There was no difference in the comparisons between midurethral slings versus Burch colposuspension surgery, pubovaginal versus midurethral slings, and inside-out versus outside-in transobturator slings.