Synthetic slings show better operative outcomes and fewer complications among females undergoing suburethral sling surgery: Study

Written By :  Dr. Shravani Dali
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2024-08-05 15:30 GMT   |   Update On 2024-08-06 06:31 GMT
Advertisement
Synthetic slings show better operative outcomes and fewer complications among females undergoing suburethral sling surgery suggests a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

This study aimed to systematically review objective and subjective success and surgical outcomes of suburethral sling surgery for female patients with stress or mixed urinary incontinence using synthetic vs nonsynthetic material with corresponding surgical approaches (retropubic or transobturator).

Advertisement

They systematically searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science Core Collection using standardized Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) without date restrictions (PROSPERO-registered). They double-screened studies and used backward citation chaining. They included peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies examining outcomes of retropubic or transobturator synthetic vs nonsynthetic (autologous, allograft, or xenograft) slings for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence, with available English or French full texts. We excluded minislings (single insertion point). We allowed slings for recurrent stress or mixed urinary incontinence, and slings concomitant with prolapse surgery, with at least 6 weeks of postoperative follow-up. They excluded systematic reviews, meta-analyses, review studies, case-control studies, case reports, studies that did not describe surgical approach or material, and studies of combination slings. They evaluated study quality using RoB, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. They used pooled relative risk with 95% confidence intervals to estimate the effect of sling material type on each outcome through meta-analysis and meta-regression, as appropriate. Results: They screened 4341 abstracts, assessed 104 full texts, and retained 35 articles (30 separate studies). For retropubic synthetic vs nonsynthetic slings, there was no difference in the number of objectively or subjectively continent patients.

The rates of reoperation for stress urinary incontinence and overall were higher with nonautologous retropubic slings than with synthetic slings. Compared with autologous slings, retropubic synthetic slings were associated with higher subjective continence in populations with ≥25% recurrent stress urinary incontinence (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–1.43). There were no differences in continence between transobturator synthetic and nonsynthetic slings. Subjective satisfaction was better in the transobturator synthetic group than in the autologous sling group (relative risk, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–1.94). Synthetic and nonsynthetic slings have comparable objective and subjective success, with synthetic materials generally showing better operative outcomes and fewer complications.

Reference:

Maryse Larouche, Mei Mu Zi Zheng, Emily C. Yang, Rea Konci, Eric Belzile, Prubjot Kaur Gill, Roxana Geoffrion. Synthetic vs nonsynthetic slings for female stress and mixed urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Volume 231, Issue 2, 2024. Pages 166-186.e8. ISSN 0002-9378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.02.306.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937824004204)

Tags:    
Article Source : American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News