Evaluation of Benefits and Harms of Surgical Treatments for Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:10
作者
Choiniere, Roselyne [1 ]
Violette, Philippe D. [2 ,3 ]
Morin, Melanie [4 ]
Tu, Le Mai [5 ]
Guyatt, Gordon H. [2 ]
Reed, Christine [1 ]
Philie, Camille-Ariane [6 ]
Legault, Benjamin [7 ]
Beaudry, Marie-Michele [8 ]
Ahmed, Muhammad Muneeb [9 ]
Richard, Patrick O. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sherbrooke, Ctr Hosp Univ Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact HEI, 1280 Main St West,2C Area, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Surg, 1280 Main St West,2C Area, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
[4] Univ Sherbrooke, Ctr Hosp Univ Sherbrooke, Sch Rehabil, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada
[5] Univ Sherbrooke, Ctr Hosp Univ Sherbrooke, Dept Urol, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada
[6] Univ Sherbrooke, GMF U Deux Rives, Dept Family Med, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada
[7] McGill Univ, Dept Urol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[8] Laval Univ, Dept Radiooncol, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
[9] McMaster Univ, Michael G DeGroote Sch Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS | 2022年 / 8卷 / 04期
关键词
Meta; -analysis; Systematic review; Urinary incontinence; Postprostatectomy; Bulking agent; Male synthetic sling; Artificial urinary sphincter; Adjustable continence therapy; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; POSTPROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; COMPLICATIONS; CLASSIFICATION; GUIDELINES; MANAGEMENT; CANCER; BIAS;
D O I
10.1016/j.euf.2021.09.007
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: No meta-analysis has comprehensively addressed both benefits and harms, or the certainty of evidence of the implantable continence devices used in men to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI).Objective: To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical treatments for patients suffering from PPI and assess the certainty of evidence. The primary benefit was cure (one or fewer pad per day), and the primary harm was reoperations defined by surgical procedures following implantation.Evidence acquisition: We perform a search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. We included observational studies addressing PPI surgical interventions if they involved cohorts of >= 50 participants. The Grading of Recommenda-tions, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach provided the frame -work for certainty of evidence assessment informed by value and preference judgments provided by patients, and an advocacy group member (Canadian Cancer Society).Evidence synthesis: Of 85 observational studies involving 13 100 patients, three addressed bulking agents, 35 male synthetic slings, ten adjustable continence therapies (ACTs), and 37 artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs). Cure was 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-51.4, I2 = 92.8%, very-low-quality evidence) for bulking agents, 58.6% (95% CI: 51.3-65.5, I2 = 89.1%, low-quality evidence) for slings, 63.2% (95% CI: 57.6-68.5, I2 = 22.5%, very-low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 74.0% (95% CI:61.2-83.7, I2 = 92.1%, very-low-quality evidence) for AUS. Estimated rates of reoperation were 5.8% (95% CI: 1.9-11.6, I2 = 94.1%, moderate-quality evidence) for slings, 23.8% (95% CI: 5.9-61.0, I2 = 95.5%, low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 22.2% (95% CI: 15.2-31.3, I2 = 92.3%, high-quality evidence) for AUS. Conclusions: Available evidence regarding the benefits of surgical interventions for PPI remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. These results should guide consent procedures for PPI surgery in the context of shared decision-making, with disclosure of the uncertainty of evidence.Patient summary: Despite being used worldwide, available evidence regarding the benefits of surgeries to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. This highlights the need for a more rigorous evaluation process for commercially available surgical devices.(c) 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1042 / 1052
页数:11
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Patient-reported outcomes after treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Avila, Monica
    Patel, Laila
    Lopez, Silvia
    Cortes-Sanabria, Laura
    Garin, Olatz
    Pont, Angels
    Ferrer, Ferran
    Boladeras, Ana
    Zamora, Victor
    Fossa, Sophie
    Storas, Anne H.
    Sanda, Martin
    Serra-Sutton, Vicky
    Ferrer, Montse
    [J]. CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS, 2018, 66 : 23 - 44
  • [2] GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
    Balshem, Howard
    Helfand, Mark
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Kunz, Regina
    Brozek, Jan
    Vist, Gunn E.
    Falck-Ytter, Yngve
    Meerpohl, Joerg
    Norris, Susan
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (04) : 401 - 406
  • [3] Bardsley Alison, 2016, Br J Nurs, V25, pS14
  • [4] Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis
    Bates, Anthony S.
    Martin, Richard M.
    Terry, Tim R.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 116 (04) : 623 - 633
  • [5] 2012 Update: Guidelines for Adult Urinary Incontinence Collaborative Consensus Document for the Canadian Urological Association
    Bettez, Mathieu
    Tu, Le Mai
    Carlson, Kevin
    Corcos, Jacques
    Gajewski, Jerzy
    Jolivet, Martine
    Bailly, Greg
    [J]. CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2012, 6 (05): : 354 - 363
  • [6] Burkhard F.C., 2020, EAU GUIDELINES URINA
  • [7] Surgical treatment for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review
    Chen, Yu-Chi
    Lin, Pin-Hsuan
    Jou, Yann-Yuh
    Lin, Victor Chia-Hsiang
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (05):
  • [8] Choiniere Roselyne, 2019, F1000Res, V8, P1155, DOI 10.12688/f1000research.19484.1
  • [9] The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications Five-Year Experience
    Clavien, Pierre A.
    Barkun, Jeffrey
    de Oliveira, Michelle L.
    Vauthey, Jean Nicolas
    Dindo, Daniel
    Schulick, Richard D.
    de Santibanes, Eduardo
    Pekolj, Juan
    Slankamenac, Ksenija
    Bassi, Claudio
    Graf, Rolf
    Vonlanthen, Rene
    Padbury, Robert
    Cameron, John L.
    Makuuchi, Masatoshi
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2009, 250 (02) : 187 - 196
  • [10] Systematic review of surgical treatment of post radical prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence
    Crivellaro, Simone
    Morlacco, Alessandro
    Bodo, Giovanni
    Agro', Enrico Finazzi
    Gozzi, Christian
    Pistolesi, Donatella
    Del Popolo, Giulio
    Ficarra, Vincenzo
    [J]. NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2016, 35 (08) : 875 - 881