Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence imposes a significant health and economic burden on individuals and society. Single-incision slings are a minimally-invasive treatment option for stress urinary incontinence. They involve passing a short synthetic device through the anterior vaginal wall to support the mid-urethra. The use of polypropylene mesh in urogynaecology, including mid-urethral slings, is restricted in many countries. This is a review update (previous search date 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of single-incision sling operations for treating urinary incontinence in women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, and two trials registers. We handsearched journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles to 20 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with stress (or stress-predominant mixed) urinary incontinence in which at least one, but not all, trial arms included a single-incision sling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was subjective cure or improvement of urinary incontinence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 studies with a total of 8051 women in this review. We did not identify any studies comparing single-incision slings to no treatment, conservative treatment, colposuspension, or laparoscopic procedures. We assessed most studies as being at low or unclear risk of bias, with five studies at high risk of bias for outcome assessment. Sixteen trials used TVT-Secur, a single-incision sling withdrawn from the market in 2013. The primary analysis in this review excludes trials using TVT-Secur. We report separate analyses for these trials, which did not substantially alter the effect estimates. We identified two cost-effectiveness analyses and one cost-minimisation analysis. Single-incision sling versus autologous fascial sling One study (70 women) compared single-incision slings to autologous fascial slings. It is uncertain if single-incision slings have any effect on risk of dyspareunia (painful sex) or mesh exposure, extrusion or erosion compared with autologous fascial slings. Subjective cure or improvement of urinary incontinence at 12 months, patient-reported pain at 24 months or longer, number of women with urinary retention, quality of life at 12 months and the number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or sling revision were not reported for this comparison. Single-incision sling versus retropubic sling Ten studies compared single-incision slings to retropubic slings. There may be little to no difference between single-incision slings and retropubic slings in subjective cure or improvement of incontinence at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.07; 2 trials, 297 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether single-incision slings increase the risk of mesh exposure, extrusion or erosion compared with retropubic minimally-invasive slings; the wide confidence interval is consistent with both benefit and harm (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.82; 3 trials, 267 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether single-incision slings lead to fewer women having postoperative urinary retention compared with retropubic slings; the wide confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and harm (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.84; 2 trials, 209 women; low-certainty evidence). The effect of single-incision slings on the risk of repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with retropubic slings is uncertain (RR 4.19, 95% CI 0.31 to 57.28; 2 trials, 182 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported quality of life, but not in a suitable format for analysis. Patient-reported pain at more than 24 months and the number of women with dyspareunia were not reported for this comparison. We downgraded the evidence due to concerns about risks of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Single-incision sling versus transobturator sling Fifty-one studies compared single-incision slings to transobturator slings. The evidence ranged from high to low certainty. There is no evidence of a difference in subjective cure or improvement of incontinence at 12 months when comparing single-incision slings with transobturator slings (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 17 trials, 2359 women; high-certainty evidence). Single-incision slings probably have a reduced risk of patient-reported pain at 24 months post-surgery compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.68; 2 trials, 250 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of single-incision slings on the risk of dyspareunia is uncertain compared with transobturator slings, as the wide confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.48; 8 trials, 810 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There are a similar number of mesh exposures, extrusions or erosions with single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96; 16 trials, 2378 women; high-certainty evidence). Single-incision slings probably result in similar or reduced cases of postoperative urinary retention compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97; 23 trials, 2891 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with single-incision slings may have lower quality of life at 12 months compared to transobturator slings (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.39; 8 trials, 698 women; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether single-incision slings lead to slightly more women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with transobturator slings (95% CI consistent with possible benefit and harm; RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.16; 13 trials, 1460 women; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence due to indirectness, imprecision and risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision sling operations have been extensively researched in randomised controlled trials. They may be as effective as retropubic slings and are as effective as transobturator slings for subjective cure or improvement of stress urinary incontinence at 12 months. It is uncertain if single-incision slings lead to better or worse rates of subjective cure or improvement compared with autologous fascial slings. There are still uncertainties regarding adverse events and longer-term outcomes. Therefore, longer-term data are needed to clarify the safety and long-term effectiveness of single-incision slings compared to other mid-urethral slings.

Nomogram predicting the probability of spontaneous stone passage in patients presenting with acute ureteric colic.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a nomogram that could predict spontaneous stone passage (SSP) in patients presenting with acute ureteric colic who are suitable for conservative management. SUBJECT/PATIENTS: A 2517 patient dataset was utilised from an international multi-centre cohort study (MIMIC, A Multi-centre Cohort Study Evaluating the role of Inflammatory Markers In Patients Presenting with Acute Ureteric Colic) of patients presenting with acute ureteric colic across 71 secondary care hospitals in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Inclusion criteria mandated a non-contrast CT-KUB. METHODS: SSP was defined as the 'absence of the need for intervention'. The model was developed using logistic regression and backwards selection (to achieve lowest AIC) in a subset from 2009-2015 (n=1728) and temporally validated on a subset from 2016-2017 (n=789). RESULTS: Of the 2517 patients, 1874 had SSP (74.5%). Mean age (±[SD]) was 47 (±14.7) years and 1892 were male (75.2%). At the end of the modelling process, gender: male (OR 0.8, 95%CI 0.64-1.01, p=0.07), neutrophil count (OR 1.03, 95%CI 1.00-1.06, p = 0.08), hydronephrosis (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.59-1.05, p=0.1), hydroureter (OR 1.3, 95%CI 0.97-1.75, p =0.08), stone size >5-7mm (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.16-0.25, p<0.0001), stone size >7mm (OR 0.11, 95%CI 0.08-0.15, p<0.001), middle ureter stone position (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.43-0.81, p=0.001), upper ureter stone position (OR 0.31, 95%CI 0.25-0.39, p<0.001) ), medical expulsive therapy use (OR 1.36, 95%CI 1.1 - 1.67, p = 0.001), oral NSAID use (OR 1.3, 95%CI 0.99 - 1.71, p=0.06), and rectal NSAID use (OR1.17, 95%CI 0.9 - 1.53, p=0.24) remained. Concordance-statistic (C-statistic) was 0.77 (95%CI 0.75 - 0.80) and a nomogram was developed based on these. CONCLUSION: The presented nomogram is available to use as an online calculator via www.BURSTurology.com and could allow clinicians and patients to make a more informed decision on pursuing conservative management versus early intervention.

The IDENTIFY study: the investigation and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer - a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC] and renal cancer) in patients referred to secondary care with haematuria, adjusted for established patient risk markers and geographical variation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international multicentre prospective observational study. We included patients aged ≥16 years, referred to secondary care with suspected urinary tract cancer. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. We estimated the prevalence of bladder cancer, UTUC, renal cancer and prostate cancer; stratified by age, type of haematuria, sex, and smoking. We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to adjust cancer prevalence for age, type of haematuria, sex, smoking, hospitals, and countries. RESULTS: Of the 11 059 patients assessed for eligibility, 10 896 were included from 110 hospitals across 26 countries. The overall adjusted cancer prevalence (n = 2257) was 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-34.1), bladder cancer (n = 1951) 24.7% (95% CI 19.1-30.2), UTUC (n = 128) 1.14% (95% CI 0.77-1.52), renal cancer (n = 107) 1.05% (95% CI 0.80-1.29), and prostate cancer (n = 124) 1.75% (95% CI 1.32-2.18). The odds ratios for patient risk markers in the model for all cancers were: age 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05; P < 0.001), visible haematuria 3.47 (95% CI 2.90-4.15; P < 0.001), male sex 1.30 (95% CI 1.14-1.50; P < 0.001), and smoking 2.70 (95% CI 2.30-3.18; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of cancer prevalence across an international population is required to inform clinical guidelines. We are the first to report urinary tract cancer prevalence across an international population in patients referred to secondary care, adjusted for patient risk markers and geographical variation. Bladder cancer was the most prevalent disease. Visible haematuria was the strongest predictor for urinary tract cancer.

Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy appears to have better continence rates when compared to conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy, however, concern with high positive surgical margin rates exist. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate evidence comparing functional and oncological outcomes of retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy and conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Bibliographic databases searched were PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials-CENTRAL (in The Cochrane library-issue 1, 2018). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search retrieved 137 references through electronic searches of various databases. Six were included in the review. RS-RALP was associated with better early continence rates (≤ 1 month) (moderate quality evidence) (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27, 2.32, p 0.0005) and at 3 months (low quality evidence) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03, 1.88, p 0.03). Time to continence recovery, number of pads used and pad weight are better with RS-RALP. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter 6 and 12 months continence rates. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter T2 positive margin rates (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.91, 3.06, p 0.10) and T3 positive margin rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68, 1.70, p = 0.75). Short-term biochemical free survival appears to be similar between the two approaches. Based on low-quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter overall and major complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: RS-RARP appears to have earlier continence recovery when compared to Con-RARP which does not come at a significant oncologic cost. Whilst there was a trend towards higher PSM rates with RS-RALP, this did not achieve statistical significance. Furthermore this trend appeared to be less pronounced with T3 disease, where the PSM rates are almost similar.

Factors associated with spontaneous stone passage in a contemporary cohort of patients presenting with acute ureteric colic: results from the Multi-centre cohort study evaluating the role of Inflammatory Markers In patients presenting with acute ureteric Colic (MIMIC) study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship of white blood cell count (WBC) and other routinely collected inflammatory and clinical markers including stone size, stone position, and medical expulsive therapy use (MET), with spontaneous stone passage (SSP) in a large contemporary cohort of patients with acute ureteric colic, as there are conflicting data on the role of WBC and other inflammatory markers in SSP in patients with acute ureteric colic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicentre retrospective cohort study coordinated by the British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST) Research Collaborative at 71 secondary care hospitals across four countries (UK, Republic of Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand). In all, 4170 patients presented with acute ureteric colic and a computed tomography confirmed single ureteric stone. Our primary outcome measure was SSP, as defined by the absence of need for intervention to assist stone passage (SP). Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between key patient factors and SSP. RESULTS: In all, 2518 patients were discharged with conservative management and had further follow-up with a SSP rate of 74% (n = 1874/2518). Sepsis after discharge with conservative management was reported in 0.6% (n = 16/2518). On multivariable analysis neither WBC, neutrophils count, nor C-reactive protein (CRP) predicted SSP, with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.04, P = 0.38), 1.06 (95% CI 0.99-1.13, P = 0.1) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00, P = 0.17), respectively. MET also did not predict SSP (adjusted OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.61). However, stone size and stone position were significant predictors. SSP for stones <5 mm was 89% (95% CI 87-90) compared to 49% (95% CI 44-53) for stones ≥5-7 mm, and 29% (95% CI 23-36) for stones >7 mm. For stones in the upper ureter the SSP rate was 52% (95% CI 48-56), middle ureter was 70% (95% CI 64-76), and lower ureter was 83% (95% CI 81-85). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the previously published literature, we found that in patients with acute ureteric colic who are discharged with initial conservative management neither WBC, neutrophil count, nor CRP, helps determine the likelihood of SSP. We also found no overall benefit from the use of MET. Stone size and position are important predictors and our present findings represent the most comprehensive SP rates for each millimetre increase in stone size from a large contemporary cohort adjusting for key potential confounders. We anticipate that these data will aid clinicians managing patients with acute ureteric colic and help guide management decisions and the need for intervention.

Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence has been shown to affect up to 50% of women. Studies in the USA have shown that up to 80% of these women have an element of stress urinary incontinence. This imposes significant health and economic burden on society and the women affected. Colposuspension and now mid-urethral slings have been shown to be effective in treating patients with stress incontinence. However, associated adverse events include bladder and bowel injury, groin pain and haematoma formation. This has led to the development of third-generation single-incision slings, also referred to as mini-slings.It should be noted that TVT-Secur (Gynecare, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) is one type of single-incision sling; it has been withdrawn from the market because of poor results. However, it is one of the most widely studied single-incision slings and was used in several of the trials included in this review. Despite its withdrawal from clinical use, it was decided that data pertaining to this sling should be included in the first iteration of this review, so that level 1a data are available in the literature to confirm its lack of efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of mini-sling procedures in women with urodynamic clinical stress or mixed urinary incontinence in terms of improved continence status, quality of life or adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (includes: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process) (searched 6 February 2013); ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (searched 20 September 2012); reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with urodynamic stress incontinence, symptoms of stress incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence, in which at least one trial arm involves one of the new single-incision slings. The definition of a single-incision sling is "a sling that does not involve either a retropubic or transobturator passage of the tape or trocar and involves only a single vaginal incision (i.e. no exit wounds in the groin or lower abdomen)." DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from individual trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 trials involving 3290 women. Some methodological flaws were observed in some trials; a summary of these is given in the 'Risk of bias in included studies' section.No studies compared single-incision slings versus no treatment, conservative treatment, colposuspension, laparoscopic procedures or traditional sub-urethral slings. No data on the comparison of single-incision slings versus retropubic mid-urethral slings (top-down approach) were available, but the review authors believe this did not affect the overall comparison versus retropubic mid-urethral slings.Types of single-incision slings included in this review: TVT-Secur (Gynecare); MiniArc (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, USA); Ajust (CR Bard Inc., Covington, USA); Needleless (Mayumana Healthcare, Lisse, The Netherlands); Ophira (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina); Tissue Fixation System (TFS PTY Ltd, Sydney, Australia) and CureMesh (DMed Co. Inc., Seoul, Korea).Women were more likely to remain incontinent after surgery with single-incision slings than with retropubic slings such as tension-free vaginal tape (TVTTM) (121/292, 41% vs 72/281, 26%; risk ratio (RR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 4.14). Duration of the operation was slightly shorter for single-incision slings but with higher risk of de novo urgency (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.56). Four of five studies in the comparison included TVT-Secur as the single-incision sling.Single-incision slings resulted in higher incontinence rates compared with inside-out transobturator slings (30% vs 11%; RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.36). The adverse event profile was significantly worse, specifically consisting of higher risks of vaginal mesh exposure (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.42 to 9.86), bladder/urethral erosion (RR 17.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 298.88) and operative blood loss (mean difference 18.79, 95% CI 3.70 to 33.88). Postoperative pain was less common with single-incision slings (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43), and rates of long-term pain or discomfort were marginally lower, but the clinical significance of these differences is questionable. Most of these findings were derived from the trials involving TVT-Secur: Excluding the other trials showed that high risk of incontinence was principally associated with use of this device (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.54). It has been withdrawn from clinical use.Evidence was insufficient to reveal a difference in incontinence rates with other single-incision slings compared with inside-out or outside-in transobturator slings. Duration of the operation was marginally shorter for single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings, but only by approximately two minutes and with significant heterogeneity in the comparison. Risks of postoperative and long-term groin/thigh pain were slightly lower with single-incision slings, but overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a significant difference in the adverse event profile for single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings. Evidence was also insufficient to permit a meaningful sensitivity analysis of the other single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings, as all confidence intervals were wide. The only significant differences were observed in rates of postoperative and long-term pain, and in duration of the operation, which marginally favoured single-incision slings.Overall results show that TVT-Secur is considerably inferior to retropubic and inside-out transobturator slings, but additional evidence is required to allow any reasonable comparison of other single-incision slings versus transobturator slings.When one single-incision sling was compared with another, evidence was insufficient to suggest a significant difference between any of the slings in any of the comparisons made. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TVT-Secur is inferior to standard mid-urethral slings for the treatment of women with stress incontinence and has already been withdrawn from clinical use. Not enough evidence has been found on other single-incision slings compared with retropubic or transobturator slings to allow reliable comparisons. A brief economic commentary (BEC) identified two studies which reported no difference in clinical outcomes between single-incision slings and transobturator mid-urethral slings, but single-incision slings may be more cost-effective than transobturator mid-urethral slings based on one-year follow-up. Additional adequately powered and high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are required. Trials should clearly describe the fixation mechanism of these single-incisions slings: It is apparent that, although clubbed together as a single group, a significant difference in fixation mechanisms may influence outcomes.

Alkalinized lidocaine versus lidocaine gel as local anesthesia prior to intra-vesical botulinum toxin (BoNTA) injections: A prospective, single center, randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial of efficacy and morbidity.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and morbidity of alkalinized lidocaine solution compared to lidocaine gel for intra-vesical anesthesia during botulinum toxin (BoNTA) injections in a statistically powered, prospective, parallel group, double-blind randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Fifty-four patients of either sex were randomized to receive either alkalinized lidocaine (AL) solution (10 ml 8.4% sodium bicarbonate + 20 ml 2% lidocaine solution + 22 ml sterile Aquagel®) or lidocaine gel (LG) (22 ml standard 2% lidocaine gel Instillagel® + 30 ml 0.9% normal saline solution). Primary outcome was average pain (assessed by 100 mm visual analog score) felt during intra-vesical BoNTA injections performed at least 20 min after instillation. Secondary outcome was the rate of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 60 randomized patients 54 received the allocated intervention and were analyzed. Mean pain score in the AL group was 17.11 mm (95%CI 8.65-25.57 mm) and in the LG group was 19.53 mm (95%CI 13.03-26.03mm) with no significant difference between the groups. Cost of interventional medication in the AL group was almost double that of the LG group. No adverse events were attributable to local anesthetic instillation in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Alkalinized lidocaine solution is not superior to lidocaine gel for anesthesia during intra-vesical BoNTA injections, and the higher cost precludes its use over lidocaine gel at our centre. We have used the results of this study to adapt our local protocol for BoNTA injections and continue to use lidocaine gel as the local anesthetic of choice. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:522-527, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing tension-free vaginal tape, xenograft and autologous fascial slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of a tension-free vaginal tape (TVT; Gynecare™, Somerville, NJ, USA), autologous fascial sling (AFS) and xenograft sling (porcine dermis, Pelvicol™; Bard, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) in the management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial carried out in four UK centres from 2001 to 2006 involving 201 women requiring primary surgery for SUI. The women were randomly assigned to receive TVT, AFS or Pelvicol. The primary outcome was surgical success defined as 'women reporting being completely 'dry' or 'improved' at the time of follow-up'. The secondary outcomes included 'completely dry' rates, changes in the Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (BFLUTS) and EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire scores. RESULTS: In all, 162 (80.6%) women were available for follow-up with a median (range) duration of 10 (6.6-12.6) years. 'Success' rates for TVT, AFS and Pelvicol were 73%, 75.4% and 58%, respectively. Comparing the 1- and 10-year 'success' rates, there was deterioration from 93% to 73% (P < 0.05) in the TVT arm and 90% to 75.4% (P < 0.05) in the AFS arm; 'dry' rates were 31.7%, 50.8% and 15.7%, respectively. Overall, the 'dry' rates favoured AFS when compared with Pelvicol (P < 0.001) and TVT (P = 0.036). The re-operation rate for persistent SUI was 3.2% (two patients) in the TVT arm, 13.1% (five) in the Pelvicol arm, while none of the patients in the AFS arm required further intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates there is not enough evidence to suggest a difference in long-term success rates between AFS and TVT. However, there is some evidence that 'dry' rates for AFS may be more durable than TVT.

Chapter 4: Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) and neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO).

This chapter focuses on the position of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment pathway for overactive bladder (OAB) and neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction associated with neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO), and the recommendations of the major international guideline groups. Recommendations of different guideline groups may vary, especially when evidence is weak, often because of differences in methodology and panel composition. Relevant guidelines from the European Association of Urology, American Urological Association, and the UK National Institute for Care and Clinical Excellence were reviewed, and the recommendations that form the basis of the treatment algorithms have been discussed. Any differences between guidelines have been highlighted and special emphasis made on the position of botulinum toxin type A in these pathways. In all the reviewed guidelines, botulinum toxin type A is recommended, alongside sacral nerve neuromodulation, to treat OAB and NDO in patients who have failed oral therapy. The evidence base is consistent, but further evidence is required regarding optimal dosing regimens and injection technique.

Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence has been shown to affect up to 50% of women. Studies in the United States have shown that up to 80% of these women have an element of stress urinary incontinence. Colposuspension and now mid-urethral slings have been shown to be effective in treating patients with stress incontinence. However, associated adverse events include bladder and bowel injury, groin pain and haematoma formation. This has led to the development of third-generation single-incision slings, also referred to as mini-slings.It should be noted that TVT-Secur (Gynecare, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) is one type of single-incision sling; it has been withdrawn from the market because of poor results. However, it is one of the most widely studied single-incision slings and was used in several of the trials included in this review. Despite its withdrawal from clinical use, it was decided that data pertaining to this sling should be included in the first iteration of this review, so that level 1a data are available in the literature to confirm its lack of efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of mini-sling procedures in women with urodynamic clinical stress or mixed urinary incontinence in terms of improved continence status, quality of life or adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process; we handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 6 February 2013) and searched ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 20 September 2012), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched 20 September 2012) and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with urodynamic stress incontinence, symptoms of stress incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence, in which at least one trial arm involves one of the new single-incision slings. The definition of a single-incision sling is "a sling that does not involve either a retropubic or transobturator passage of the tape or trocar and involves only a single vaginal incision (i.e. no exit wounds in the groin or lower abdomen)." DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the individual trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 trials involving 3290 women. Some methodological flaws were observed in some trials; a summary of these is given in the 'Risk of bias in included studies' section.No studies compared single-incision slings versus no treatment, conservative treatment, colposuspension, laparoscopic procedures or traditional sub-urethral slings. Also no data on the comparison of single-incision slings versus retropubic mid-urethral slings (top-down approach) were available, but the review authors believe this did not affect the overall comparison versus retropubic mid-urethral slings.The types of single-incision slings included in this review were TVT-Secur (Gynecare), MiniArc (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA), Ajust (C.R. Bard, Inc.,Covington, GA, USA), Needleless (Mayumana Healthcare, Lisse, The Netherlands), Ophira (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina), Tissue Fixation System (TFS PTY Ltd, Sydney, Australia) and CureMesh (D.Med. Co., Inc., Seoul, Korea).Women were more likely to remain incontinent after surgery with single-incision slings than with retropubic slings such as tension-free vaginal tape (TVT(TM)) (121/292, 41% vs 72/281, 26%; risk ratio (RR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 4.14). Duration of the operation was slightly shorter for single-incision slings but with higher risk of de novo urgency (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.56). Four of five studies in the comparison included TVT-Secur as the single-incision sling.Single-incision slings resulted in higher incontinence rates compared with inside-out transobturator slings (30% vs 11%; RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.36). The adverse event profile was significantly worse, specifically consisting of higher risks of vaginal mesh exposure (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.42 to 9.86), bladder/urethral erosion (RR 17.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 298.88) and operative blood loss (mean difference 18.79, 95% CI 3.70 to 33.88). Postoperative pain was less common with single-incision slings (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43), and rates of long-term pain or discomfort were marginally lower, but the clinical significance of these differences is questionable. Most of these findings were derived from the trials involving TVT-Secur: Excluding the other trials showed that high risk of incontinence was principally associated with use of this device (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.54). It has been withdrawn from clinical use.Evidence was insufficient to reveal a difference in incontinence rates with other single-incision slings compared with inside-out or outside-in transobturator slings. Duration of the operation was marginally shorter for single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings, but only by approximately two minutes and with significant heterogeneity in the comparison. Risks of postoperative and long-term groin/thigh pain were slightly lower with single-incision slings, but overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a significant difference in the adverse event profile for single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings. Evidence was also insufficient to permit a meaningful sensitivity analysis of the other single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings, as all confidence intervals were wide. The only significant differences were observed in rates of postoperative and long-term pain, and in duration of the operation, which marginally favoured single-incision slings.Overall results show that TVT-Secur is considerably inferior to retropubic and inside-out transobturator slings, but additional evidence is required to allow any reasonable comparison of other single-incision slings versus transobturator slings.When one single-incision sling was compared with another, evidence was insufficient to suggest a significant difference between any of the slings in any of the comparisons made. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TVT-Secur is inferior to standard mid-urethral slings for the treatment of women with stress incontinence and has already been withdrawn from clinical use. Not enough evidence has been found on other single-incision slings compared with retropubic or transobturator slings to allow reliable comparisons. Additional adequately powered and high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are required. Trials should clearly describe the fixation mechanism of these single-incisions slings: It is apparent that, although clubbed together as a single group, a significant difference in fixation mechanisms may influence outcomes.

What Are the Short-term Benefits and Potential Harms of Therapeutic Modalities for the Management of Overactive Bladder Syndrome in Women? A Review of Evidence Under the Auspices of the European Association of Urology, Female Non-neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Guidelines Panel.

CONTEXT: Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is highly prevalent among women and has a negative impact on their quality of life. The current available treatments for OAB symptoms include conservative, pharmacological, or surgical modalities. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated contemporary evidence document regarding OAB treatment options and determine the short-term effectiveness, safety, and potential harms of the available treatment modalities for women with OAB syndrome. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane controlled trial databases and clinicaltrial.gov were searched for all relevant publications up to May 2022. The risk of bias assessment followed the recommended tool in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and quality of evidence was assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. A meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Antimuscarinics and beta-3 agonists were significantly more effective than placebo across most outcomes, with beta-3 agonists being more effective at reducing nocturia episodes and antimuscarinics causing significantly higher adverse events. Onabotulinumtoxin-A (Onabot-A) was more effective than placebo across most outcomes, but with significantly higher rates of acute urinary retention/clean intermittent self-catheterisation (six to eight times) and urinary tract infections (UTIs; two to three times). Onabot-A was also significantly better than antimuscarinics in the cure of urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) but not in the reduction of mean UUI episodes. Success rates of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) were significantly higher than those of antimuscarinics (61% vs 42%, p = 0.02), with similar rates of adverse events. SNS and Onabot-A were not significantly different in efficacy outcomes. Satisfaction rates were higher with Onabot-A, but with a higher rate of recurrent UTIs (24% vs 10%). SNS was associated with 9% removal rate and 3% revision rate. CONCLUSIONS: Overactive bladder is a manageable condition, with first-line treatment options including antimuscarinics, beta-3 agonists, and posterior tibial nerve stimulation. Second-line options include Onabot-A bladder injections or SNS. The choice of therapies should be guided by individual patient factors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Overactive bladder is a manageable condition. All patients should be informed and advised on conservative treatment measures in the first instance. The first-line treatment options for its management include antimuscarinics or beta-3 agonists medication, and posterior tibial nerve stimulation procedures. The second-line options include onabotulinumtoxin-A bladder injections or sacral nerve stimulation procedure. The therapy should be chosen based on individual patient factors.

Benefits and Harms of Conservative, Pharmacological, and Surgical Management Options for Women with Bladder Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel.

CONTEXT: While the management of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men has been a topic of several systematic reviews and meta-analyses, no such evidence base exists for female BOO. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of therapeutic interventions for the management of BOO in women. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183839). A systematic literature search was performed and updated by a research librarian in May 2021. The study population consisted of adult female patients diagnosed with BOO, who underwent treatment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 6344 records, we identified 33 studies enrolling 1222 participants, of which only six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found. One placebo-controlled crossover randomized trial assessed the role of baclofen in 60 female patients with dysfunctional voiding. The trial met its primary endpoint with a significantly greater decrease in the number of voids per day in the baclofen group (-5.53 vs -2.70; p = 0.001). The adverse events were mild and comparable in both groups (25% vs 20%). One placebo-controlled crossover randomized trial assessed the role of sildenafil in 20 women with Fowler's syndrome. There were significant improvements from baseline in maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and postvoid residual (PVR), but with no statistically significant difference when compared with placebo. In a large RCT including 197 female patients with functional BOO, the alpha-blocker alfuzosin significantly improved IPSS, Qmax, and PVR compared with baseline, but the differences were not statistically significant compared with the placebo group. Several small single-arm prospective series reported improvement of BOO-related symptoms and voiding parameters with urethroplasty, sling revision, urethral dilation, vaginal pessary, and pelvic organ prolapse repair. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the use of conservative, pharmacological, and surgical treatments for BOO is scarce. PATIENT SUMMARY: According to the present systematic review of the literature, evidence to support the use of conservative, pharmacological, and surgical treatments for either anatomical or functional bladder outlet obstruction is scarce.

Developing a Diagnostic Multivariable Prediction Model for Urinary Tract Cancer in Patients Referred with Haematuria: Results from the IDENTIFY Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient factors associated with urinary tract cancer can be used to risk stratify patients referred with haematuria, prioritising those with a higher risk of cancer for prompt investigation. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for urinary tract cancer in patients referred with haematuria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 10 282 patients from 110 hospitals across 26 countries, aged ≥16 yr and referred to secondary care with haematuria. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were the presence or absence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC], and renal cancer). Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was performed with site and country as random effects and clinically important patient-level candidate predictors, chosen a priori, as fixed effects. Predictors were selected primarily using clinical reasoning, in addition to backward stepwise selection. Calibration and discrimination were calculated, and bootstrap validation was performed to calculate optimism. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The unadjusted prevalence was 17.2% (n = 1763) for bladder cancer, 1.20% (n = 123) for UTUC, and 1.00% (n = 103) for renal cancer. The final model included predictors of increased risk (visible haematuria, age, smoking history, male sex, and family history) and reduced risk (previous haematuria investigations, urinary tract infection, dysuria/suprapubic pain, anticoagulation, catheter use, and previous pelvic radiotherapy). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.85-0.87). The model is limited to patients without previous urological malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: This cancer prediction model is the first to consider established and novel urinary tract cancer diagnostic markers. It can be used in secondary care for risk stratifying patients and aid the clinician's decision-making process in prioritising patients for investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: We have developed a tool that uses a person's characteristics to determine the risk of cancer if that person develops blood in the urine (haematuria). This can be used to help prioritise patients for further investigation.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Female Non-neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Part 1: Diagnostics, Overactive Bladder, Stress Urinary Incontinence, and Mixed Urinary Incontinence.

CONTEXT: Female lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are a common presentation in urological practice. Thus far, only a limited number of female LUTS conditions have been included in the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines compendium. The new non-neurogenic female LUTS guideline expands the remit to include these symptoms and conditions. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the diagnostic section of the non-neurogenic female LUTS guideline and the management of female overactive bladder (OAB), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: New literature searches were carried out in September 2021 and evidence synthesis was conducted using the modified GRADE criteria as outlined for all EAU guidelines. A new systematic review (SR) on OAB was carried out by the panel for the purposes of this guideline. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The important considerations for informing guideline recommendations are presented, along with a summary of all the guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Non-neurogenic female LUTS are an important cause of urological dysfunction. Initial evaluation, diagnosis, and management should be carried out in a structured and logical fashion based on the best available evidence. This guideline serves to present this evidence to health care providers in an easily accessible and digestible format. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises the main recommendations from the European Association of Urology guideline on symptoms and diseases of the female lower urinary tract (bladder and urethra) not associated with neurological disease. We cover recommendations related to diagnosis of these conditions, as well as the treatment of overactive bladder, stress urinary incontinence, and mixed urinary incontinence.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Management of Female Non-neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Part 2: Underactive Bladder, Bladder Outlet Obstruction, and Nocturia.

CONTEXT: Female lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are a common presentation in urological practice. Thus far, only a limited number of female LUTS conditions have been included in the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines compendium. The new non-neurogenic female LUTS guidelines expand the remit to include these symptoms and conditions. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the management of underactive bladder (UAB), bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), and nocturia in females. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The literature search was updated in September 2021 and evidence synthesis was conducted using modified GRADE approach as outlined for all EAU guidelines. A new systematic review on BOO was carried out by the panel for purposes of this guideline. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The important considerations for informing guideline recommendations are presented, along with a summary of all the guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Non-neurogenic female LUTS are an important presentation of urological dysfunction. Initial evaluation, diagnosis, and management should be carried out in a structured and logical fashion on the basis of the best available evidence. This guideline serves to present this evidence to practising urologists and other health care providers in an easily accessible and digestible format. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises the main recommendations from the European Association of Urology guideline on symptoms and diseases of the female lower urinary tract (bladder and urethra) not associated with neurological disease. We cover recommendations related to the treatment of underactive bladder, obstruction of the bladder outlet, and nighttime urination.

Diagnostic Tests for Female Bladder Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines Panel.

CONTEXT: Female bladder outlet obstruction (fBOO) is a relatively uncommon condition compared with its male counterpart. Several criteria have been proposed to define fBOO, but the comparative diagnostic accuracy of these remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare different tests to diagnose fBOO through a systematic review process. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The EMBASE/MEDLINE/Cochrane databases were searched up to August 4, 2020. Studies on women ≥18 yr of age with suspected bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) involving diagnostic tests were included. Pressure-flow studies or fluoroscopy was used as the reference standard where possible. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 28 nonrandomised studies involving 10 248 patients were included in the qualitative analysis. There was significant heterogeneity regarding the characteristics of women included in BOO cohorts (ie, mixed cohorts including both anatomical and functional BOO). Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy was evaluated in 25 studies. Transperineal Doppler ultrasound was used to evaluate bladder neck dynamics in two studies. One study tested the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound. The urodynamic definition of fBOO also varied amongst studies with different parameters and thresholds used, which precluded a meta-analysis. Three studies derived nomograms using the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and voiding detrusor pressure at Qmax. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy ranges were 54.6-92.5%, 64.6-93.9%, and 64.1-92.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on diagnostic tests for fBOO is limited and heterogeneous. Pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy remains the current standard for diagnosing fBOO. PATIENT SUMMARY: Evidence on tests used to diagnose female bladder outlet obstruction was reviewed. The most common test used was pressure-flow studies ± fluoroscopy, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The available evidence on diagnostic tests for female bladder outlet obstruction is limited and heterogeneous. The most common test used was video-urodynamics, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women.