Occult Urinary Incontinence Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-Brazilian Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if performing anti-incontinence procedures during surgical anterior and/or apical prolapse correction in women with asymptomatic urinary incontinence (UI) may prevent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) postoperatively. METHODS: We have performed a systematic review of articles published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases until March 31, 2016. Two reviewers performed the data collection and analysis, independently. All of the selected studies were methodologically analyzed. The results are presented as relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: After performing the selection of the studies, only nine trials fulfilled the necessary prerequisites. In the present review, 1,146 patients were included. Altogether, the review included trials of three different types of anti-incontinence procedures. We found that performing any anti-incontinence procedure at the same time of prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively (RR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91). However, when we performed the analysis separately by the type of anti-incontinence procedure, we found different results. In the subgroup analysis with midurethral slings, it is beneficial to perform it to reduce the incidence of SUI (RR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.28). On the other hand, in the subgroup analysis with Burch colposuspension, there was no significant difference with the control group (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.28-7.79]). CONCLUSION: Performing any prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the same time as prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively. The Burch colposuspension did not show any decrease in the incidence of SUI postoperatively.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar se a realização de procedimentos anti-incontinência durante a correção cirúrgica do prolapso anterior e/ou apical em mulheres assintomáticas para incontinência urinária (IU) pode prevenir a incontinência urinária de esforço (IUE) no pós-operatório. MéTODOS:: Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática dos artigos publicados nas bases de dados PubMed, Cochrane Library e Lilacs até o dia 31 de março de 2016. Dois revisores realizaram a coleta e a análise de dados, de forma independente. Todos os estudos selecionados foram analisados metodologicamente. Os resultados estão apresentados como risco relativo (RR), com 95% de intervalo de confiança (IC). RESULTADOS: Após a seleção do estudo, apenas nove estudos preencheram os pré-requisitos necessários. Nesta revisão, 1.146 pacientes foram incluídos. No total, a revisão incluiu ensaios de três tipos diferentes de procedimentos anti-incontinência. Descobrimos que realizar qualquer procedimento anti-incontinência ao mesmo tempo que o reparo do prolapso reduziu a incidência de IU no pós-operatório (RR = 0,50; IC 95%: 0,28­0,91). No entanto, quando fizemos a análise separadamente pelo tipo de procedimento anti-incontinência, encontramos resultados diferentes. Na análise de subgrupos com slings miduretrais, é benéfico realizá-lo para reduzir a incidência de IU (RR = 0,08; IC 95%: 0,02­0,28). Por outro lado, na análise de subgrupo com colposuspensão de Burch, não houve diferença significativa com o grupo controle (RR = 1,47; IC 95%: 0,28­7,79]). CONCLUSãO:: A realização de qualquer procedimento profilático anti-incontinência ao mesmo tempo que o reparo do prolapso reduziu a incidência de IUE no pós-operatório. A colposuspensão de Burch não mostrou diminuição na incidência de IUE no pós-operatório.

Occult urinary incontinence treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis-brazilian guidelines / Tratamento de incontinência urinária oculta: revisão sistemática e metanálise - diretrizes brasileiras

Abstract Objective To evaluate if performing anti-incontinence procedures during surgical anterior and/or apical prolapse correction in women with asymptomatic urinary incontinence (UI) may prevent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) postoperatively. Methods We have performed a systematic review of articles published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases until March 31, 2016. Two reviewers performed the data collection and analysis, independently. All of the selected studiesweremethodologically analyzed. The results are presented as relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results After performing the selection of the studies, only nine trials fulfilled the necessary prerequisites. In the present review, 1,146 patients were included. Altogether, the review included trials of three different types of anti-incontinence procedures. We found that performing any anti-incontinence procedure at the same time of prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively (RR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91). However, when we performed the analysis separately by the type of anti-incontinence procedure, we found different results. In the subgroup analysis with midurethral slings, it is beneficial to perform it to reduce the incidence of SUI (RR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.28). On the other hand, in the subgroup analysis with Burch colposuspension, there was no significant difference with the control group (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.28-7.79]). Conclusion Performing any prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the same time as prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively. The Burch colposuspension did not show any decrease in the incidence of SUI postoperatively.

Resumo Objetivo: Avaliar se a realização de procedimentos anti-incontinência durante a correção cirúrgica do prolapso anterior e/ou apical em mulheres assintomáticas para incontinência urinária (IU) pode prevenir a incontinência urinária de esforço (IUE) no pós-operatório. Métodos: Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática dos artigos publicados nas bases de dados PubMed, Cochrane Library e Lilacs até o dia 31 de março de 2016. Dois revisores realizaram a coleta e a análise de dados, de forma independente. Todos os estudos selecionados foram analisados metodologicamente. Os resultados estão apresentados como risco relativo (RR), com 95% de intervalo de confiança (IC). Resultados: Após a seleção do estudo, apenas nove estudos preencheram os prérequisitos necessários. Nesta revisão, 1.146 pacientes foram incluídos. No total, a revisão incluiu ensaios de três tipos diferentes de procedimentos anti-incontinência. Descobrimos que realizar qualquer procedimento anti-incontinência ao mesmo tempo que o reparo do prolapso reduziu a incidência de IU no pós-operatório (RR = 0,50; IC 95%: 0,28-0,91). No entanto, quando fizemos a análise separadamente pelo tipo de procedimento antiincontinência, encontramos resultados diferentes. Na análise de subgrupos com slings miduretrais, é benéfico realizá-lo para reduzir a incidência de IU (RR = 0,08; IC 95%: 0,02- 0,28). Por outro lado, na análise de subgrupo com colposuspensão de Burch, não houve diferença significativa com o grupo controle (RR = 1,47; IC 95%: 0,28-7,79]). Conclusão: A realização de qualquer procedimento profilático anti-incontinência ao mesmo tempo que o reparo do prolapso reduziu a incidência de IUE no pós-operatório. A colposuspensão de Burch nãomostrou diminuição na incidência de IUE no pós-operatório.

Patients lost to follow-up after midurethral sling surgery: How are they?

Purpose To assess the ratio of patients lost to follow-up (FU) after midurethral sling surgery, to evaluate their success rate and current status, and to identify the reasons for FU loss. Materials and Methods Two-hundred thirty-eight patients who received trans-obturator tape (TOT) surgery were reviewed. For patients lost to FU within 3 months, Stamey’s outcome questionnaire and questions regarding the reasons for FU loss were submitted via phone interview. Results One hundred forty-three (60.1%) patients (FU loss group) were lost to FU within 3 months postoperatively. In the FU loss group, phone interviews were conducted with 117 (81.8%) patients. Aside from the urgency rate (59.3% vs. 72.3%, p=0.049), there were no significant statistical differences in preoperative profiles between two group. The success rate of the FU loss group (80.3%, 94 of 117 patients) was lower than that of the FU group (95.8%, 91 of 95 patients) (p=0.001). The success rates in the FU loss group with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) were significantly lower than in the FU group with MUI. As for the reason for FU loss, 74 patients (62.7%) were lost due to incontinence improvement, 19 patients (16.1%) cited personal problems, and 5 patients forgot the next follow-up date. Only 10 patients gave up further treatment despite their persisting incontinence. Conclusions In our study, more than half of patients were lost to follow-up after midurethral sling surgery. The FU loss group showed a lower surgical success rate, particularly with MUI. Close FU is recommended for better consultation of patients’ incontinence. .

Patients lost to follow-up after midurethral sling surgery: how are they?

PURPOSE: To assess the ratio of patients lost to follow-up (FU) after midurethral sling surgery, to evaluate their success rate and current status, and to identify the reasons for FU loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two-hundred thirty-eight patients who received trans-obturator tape (TOT) surgery were reviewed. For patients lost to FU within 3 months, Stamey's outcome questionnaire and questions regarding the reasons for FU loss were submitted via phone interview. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three (60.1%) patients (FU loss group) were lost to FU within 3 months postoperatively. In the FU loss group, phone interviews were conducted with 117 (81.8%) patients. Aside from the urgency rate (59.3% vs. 72.3%, p=0.049), there were no significant statistical differences in preoperative profiles between two group. The success rate of the FU loss group (80.3%, 94 of 117 patients) was lower than that of the FU group (95.8%, 91 of 95 patients) (p=0.001). The success rates in the FU loss group with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) were significantly lower than in the FU group with MUI. As for the reason for FU loss, 74 patients (62.7%) were lost due to incontinence improvement, 19 patients (16.1%) cited personal problems, and 5 patients forgot the next follow-up date. Only 10 patients gave up further treatment despite their persisting incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, more than half of patients were lost to follow-up after midurethral sling surgery. The FU loss group showed a lower surgical success rate, particularly with MUI. Close FU is recommended for better consultation of patients ' incontinence.