Medium-term and Long-term Outcomes Following Placement of Midurethral Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence: a Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Overview
Urology
Affiliations
Introduction And Hypothesis: Questions regarding the long-term efficacy and safety of midurethral slings (MUS) are still unresolved, notwithstanding the widespread use of these procedures. The objective of this review was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of retropubic MUS (RP-MUS) procedures and the medium-term outcomes of transobturator MUS (TO-MUS) procedures.
Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLH, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases were searched up to June 2014 with restriction to English language and using the search terms: "stress urinary incontinence", "midurethral sling", "tension-free tape", "transobturator tape", and "follow-up". Studies with a follow-up of 36 months for TO-MUS and 60 months for RP-MUS were searched. Only studies comparing a RP-MUS or TO-MUS with another synthetic sling were included. Data from 49 studies were included. Data were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) and combined using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model. Differences in the proportions were evaluated using the chi-squared test.
Results: RP-MUS had similar objective cure rates (OR 1.15, 95 % CI 0.75 - 1.76) but higher subjective cure rates than TO-MUS (OR 1.76, 95 % CI 1.08 - 2.86). No differences were observed between outside-in (TOT) and inside-out (TVT-O) and between TO-MUS and minisling. Bladder injuries were more frequent (OR 7.01, 95 % CI 2.94 - 17.90) and vaginal erosions were less frequent for RP-MUS (OR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.07 - 0.84). Vaginal injuries were more common with TOT than with TVT-O (OR 7.96, 95 % CI 1.15 - 157.9). Pain-related complications were more common with TO-MUS than with minimally invasive tapes (OR 8.75; 95 % CI 9.02 - 57.90).
Conclusions: MUS have similar objective cure rates in the long term and medium term. TO-MUS is associated with a lower subjective cure rate than RP-MUS.
Hillmeyer A, Kennes L, Strauss M, Lube K, Stickeler E, Najjari L J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.
PMID: 39797242 PMC: 11721789. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010159.
Braga A, Papadia A, Gamarra E, Caccia G, Campitiello M, Torella M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(19).
PMID: 39407759 PMC: 11476623. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13195699.
Plotti F, Rampello S, Terranova C, De Cicco Nardone C, Luvero D, Montera R J Clin Med. 2024; 13(16).
PMID: 39200904 PMC: 11355201. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13164762.
Late-presenting with a tumor-like mass giant cell reaction related to retropubic midurethral sling.
Kaufman R, Vu A, Ufondu O, Powell M, Lanzer J, Terris M Urol Case Rep. 2023; 50:102468.
PMID: 37719190 PMC: 10504477. DOI: 10.1016/j.eucr.2023.102468.
Complications following retropubic versus transobturator midurethral synthetic sling placement.
Sears S, Rhodes S, McBride C, Shoag J, Sheyn D Int Urogynecol J. 2023; 34(10):2389-2397.
PMID: 37133561 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05553-x.