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 Sixteen trials used TVT-Secur, a single-incision sling withdrawn from the market in 2013.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.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of endoscopic bipolar radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review.

Background: Early evidence suggests that using radiofrequency ablation as an adjunct to standard care (i.e. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stenting) may improve outcomes in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and potential risks of endoscopic bipolar radiofrequency ablation for malignant biliary obstruction, and the value of future research. Data sources: Seven bibliographic databases, three websites and seven trials registers were searched from 2008 until 21 January 2021. Review methods: The study inclusion criteria were as follows: patients with biliary obstruction caused by any form of unresectable malignancy; the intervention was reported as an endoscopic biliary radiofrequency ablation to ablate malignant tissue that obstructs the bile or pancreatic ducts, either to fit a stent (primary radiofrequency ablation) or to clear an obstructed stent (secondary radiofrequency ablation); the primary outcomes were survival, quality of life or procedure-related adverse events; and the study design was a controlled study, an observational study or a case report. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools. The primary analysis was meta-analysis of the hazard ratio of mortality. Subgroup analyses were planned according to the type of probe, the type of stent (i.e. metal or plastic) and cancer type. A de novo Markov model was developed to model cost and quality-of-life outcomes associated with radiofrequency ablation in patients with primary advanced bile duct cancer. Insufficient data were available for pancreatic cancer and secondary bile duct cancer. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was adopted for the analysis. A probabilistic analysis was conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for radiofrequency ablation and the probability that radiofrequency ablation was cost-effective at different thresholds. The population expected value of perfect information was estimated in total and for the effectiveness parameters. Results: Sixty-eight studies (1742 patients) were included in the systematic review. Four studies (336 participants) were combined in a meta-analysis, which showed that the pooled hazard ratio for mortality following primary radiofrequency ablation compared with a stent-only control was 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.55). Little evidence relating to the impact on quality of life was found. There was no evidence to suggest an increased risk of cholangitis or pancreatitis, but radiofrequency ablation may be associated with an increase in cholecystitis. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were that the costs of radiofrequency ablation was £2659 and radiofrequency ablation produced 0.18 quality-adjusted life-years, which was more than no radiofrequency ablation on average. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £14,392 per quality-adjusted life-year, radiofrequency ablation was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across most scenario analyses, with moderate uncertainty. The source of the vast majority of decision uncertainty lay in the effect of radiofrequency ablation on stent patency. Limitations: Only 6 of 18 comparative studies contributed to the survival meta-analysis, and few data were found concerning secondary radiofrequency ablation. The economic model and cost-effectiveness meta-analysis required simplification because of data limitations. Inconsistencies in standard reporting and study design were noted. Conclusions: Primary radiofrequency ablation increases survival and is likely to be cost-effective. The evidence for the impact of secondary radiofrequency ablation on survival and of quality of life is limited. There was a lack of robust clinical effectiveness data and, therefore, more information is needed for this indication. Future work: Future work investigating radiofrequency ablation must collect quality-of-life data. High-quality randomised controlled trials in secondary radiofrequency ablation are needed, with appropriate outcomes recorded. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020170233. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The bile and pancreatic ducts transport fluids to the intestines to help people digest their food properly. Some types of cancer can cause these ducts to become totally or partially blocked. We wanted to know if endoscopic radiofrequency ablation is safe and works well to treat people who have one of these blockages that cannot be removed by surgery. Radiofrequency ablation burns away a blockage by hitting it with radio waves. Endoscopic means that the radio waves are directed to the blockage using a thin, tube-like wire with a camera at the end. During radiofrequency ablation, a person might have a small tube called a stent put into their bile or pancreatic duct to keep it open or to replace an already blocked stent.

We searched for research studies that looked at (1) whether or not radiofrequency ablation was able to remove blockages from the ducts, (2) if radiofrequency ablation allowed people to live longer, (3) if patients had a better quality of life after radiofrequency ablation, (4) if radiofrequency ablation caused any side effects and (5) how much it costs to treat people with radiofrequency ablation.

We found that treatment with radiofrequency ablation before giving a person a stent helped them to live a little longer with their cancer. We did not find any evidence that radiofrequency ablation increased pain or swelling in the bile duct or pancreatic duct. Radiofrequency ablation might cause more swelling in the gall bladder than having a stent without radiofrequency ablation, but there was not enough research available for us to be certain of this.

Radiofrequency ablation before inserting a stent could be a safe option to add to treatment of bile and pancreatic duct blockages caused by cancer. There is limited research evidence and so we are unable to recommend radiofrequency ablation as a treatment for standard clinical practice.