Transobturator versus single incision slings: 1-year results of a randomized controlled trial

Long-Term Outcomes of the Altis® Single-Incision Sling: Up to 10 Years' Follow-up

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Single-incision slings (SIS) have emerged as a less invasive alternative to conventional slings for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) treatment. However, long-term efficacy and safety results remain uncertain owing to a lack of studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 155 patients treated with Altis® for SUI between February 2012 and June 2017, held in 2022, as a continuation of a prospective study in which all patients (197) were reviewed for 2 years after surgery (1, 6, 12, and 24 months). Preoperative demographic data, comorbidities, and pressure-flow studies were also recorded. Continence status and satisfaction rates were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form (ICIQ-SF) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) respectively. The assessment in the 2022 retrospective review was performed via a telephone survey.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time after surgery was 85.3 months (82.5-88.1). In 2022, complete continence was present in 75.4% of the patients. The presence of urinary urgency conditioned the ICIQ-SF score (10.9 vs 1.7 points, p < 0.01), with the ICIQ-SF = 0 in 84.5% of the patients with no associated urgency. Satisfaction assessed by the PGI-I was high, with 84.6% of the patients showing improvement. De novo urgency was present in 37,9% of the patients by 2022. Urinary tract infections were the most frequent complication (9.7%), with only 5 documented cases of mesh erosion.

CONCLUSIONS

Altis® SIS is a safe and effective device for SUI treatment, with satisfaction rates comparable with those of the conventional slings. Persistence or development of urinary urgency influences the results.

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.

Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence is the most common type of urinary incontinence in premenopausal women. Until recently, synthetic mid-urethral slings (mesh/tape) were the standard surgical treatment, if conservative management failed. Adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings are newer, use less mesh and may reduce perioperative morbidity, but it is unclear how their success rates and safety compare with those of standard tension-free mid-urethral slings.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare tension-free standard mid-urethral slings with adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings among women with stress urinary incontinence requiring surgical intervention, in terms of patient-reported effectiveness, health-related quality of life, safety and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio).

SETTING

The trial was set in 21 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were women aged ≥ 18 years with predominant stress urinary incontinence, undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure.

INTERVENTIONS

Single-incision mini-slings, compared with standard mid-urethral slings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported success rates on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 15 months post randomisation (≈ 1 year post surgery), with success defined as outcomes of 'very much improved' or 'much improved'. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms, quality of life and sexual function.

RESULTS

A total of 600 participants were randomised. At 15 months post randomisation, adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to tension-free standard mid-urethral slings at the 10% margin for the primary outcome [single-incision mini-sling 79% (212/268) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 76% (189/250), risk difference 4.6, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 11.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Similarly, at 3 years' follow-up, patient-reported success rates in the single-incision mini-sling group were non-inferior to those of the standard mid-urethral sling group at the 10% margin [single-incision mini-sling 72% (177/246) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 67% (157/235), risk difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 12.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Tape/mesh exposure rates were higher for single-incision mini-sling participants, with 3.3% (9/276) [compared with 1.9% (5/261) in the standard mid-urethral sling group] reporting tape exposure over the 3 years of follow-up. The rate of groin/thigh pain was slightly higher in the single-incision mini-sling group at 15 months [single-incision mini-sling 15% (41/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 12% (31/261), risk difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 7.1%]; however, by 3 years, the rate of pain was slightly higher among the standard mid-urethral sling participants [single-incision mini-sling 14% (39/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 15% (39/261), risk difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to 2.5]. At the 3-year follow-up, quality of life and sexual function outcomes were similar in both groups: for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, the mean difference in scores was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.8; p = 0.24), and for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association-Revised, it was 0 (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.1; p = 0.92). However, more women in the single-incision mini-sling group reported dyspareunia [12% (17/145), compared with 4.8% (7/145) in the standard mid-urethral sling group, risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 1.9% to 12.1%]. The base-case economics results showed no difference in costs (-£6, 95% confidence interval -£228 to £208) or quality-adjusted life-years (0.005, 95% confidence interval -0.068 to 0.073) between the groups. There is a 56% probability that single-incision mini-slings will be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up data beyond 3 years post randomisation are not available to inform longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to standard mid-urethral slings in patient-reported success rates at up to 3 years' follow-up.

FUTURE WORK

Success rates, adverse events, retreatment rates, symptoms, and quality-of-life scores at 10 years' follow-up will help inform long-term effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered as ISRCTN93264234.

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. 26, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Focusing on long-term complications of mid-urethral slings among women with stress urinary incontinence as a patient safety improvement measure: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are 3 different types of mid-urethral sling, retropubic, transobturator and single incision performed for women with stress urinary incontinence. Prior studies comparing these three surgeries merely focused on the successful rate or efficacy. But nevertheless, what is more clinically important dwells upon investigating postoperative complications as a safety improvement measure.

METHODS

A systematic review via PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and studies were applied based on the contents with clearly identified complications. Selected articles were reviewed in scrutiny by 2 individuals to ascertain whether they fulfilled the inclusion criteria: complications measures were clearly defined; data were extracted on study design, perioperative complications, postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms, postoperative pain, dyspareunia, and other specified late complications.

RESULTS

A total of 55 studies were included in the systemic review. Perioperative complications encompassed bladder perforation, vaginal injury, hemorrhage, hematoma, urinary tract infection. There were postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms including urine retention and de novo urgency. Furthermore, postoperative pain, tape erosion/ extrusion, further stress urinary incontinence surgery, and rarely, deep vein thrombosis and injury of inferior epigastric vessels were also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications of mid-urethral sling are higher than previously thought and it is important to follow up on their long-term outcomes; future research should not neglect to address this issue as a means to improve patient safety.

Is There Outcome Reporting Heterogeneity in Trials That Aim to Assess the Effectiveness of Surgical Treatments for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women?

CONTEXT

Inconsistent reporting of effectiveness outcomes in surgical trials of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has hindered direct comparisons of various surgical treatments for SUI.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the verbatim outcome names, outcome definitions, and tools used to measure the outcomes in surgical trials of SUI in women.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Trials of women with SUI who have undergone surgical interventions were included. We conducted a systematic review (SR) on outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of surgical management published in 2014-2019, covering the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CDSR. Verbatim outcome names extracted from the included studies were categorized and then grouped into domains using the Williamson-Clarke (W/C) outcome taxonomy. A matrix was also created to visualize and quantify the dimensions of outcome reporting heterogeneity in SUI trials.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 844 verbatim outcome names were extracted, of which, 514 varied terms were reduced to 71 standardized outcome names. They were further categorized into 11 domains from the W/C taxonomy. There were 7.24 different terms on average to describe each outcome, and the four outcomes with the most heterogeneity evident in terms used to describe them were "urinary retention", "reoperation", "subjective cure rate" and "quality of life". Each of them had ≥20 different terms. Only 28% of the outcome definitions were reported and a variety of measuring tools was noted, particularly in subjective outcomes. High heterogeneity was found in the outcome names, outcome definitions, choice and number of measuring instruments of the outcomes, and choice and number of outcomes reported across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This SR provides objective evidence of heterogeneity in outcome reporting in SUI surgical trials. Our categorization of outcomes highlights the difficulties in summarizing the current evidence base. A core outcome set, developed using the methods advocated by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiatives, is required.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this research, we have highlighted the diversity in outcomes reporting in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgical trials and have categorized the outcomes. We support the development of a core outcome set for SUI, which will promote future clinical researchers to measure the same outcome in the same way in all trials. This will, in turn, help researchers summarize the evidence more effectively and aid decision making for patients and doctors.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision mini-slings (MiniArc) versus transobturator mid-urethral slings in surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND

To assess the current evidence of effectiveness and safety of single-incision mini-slings (MiniArc) versus transobturator midurethral slings in the management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed from the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library by November 2017. Using RevMan5.3 statistical software, the primary outcomes including subject and objective cure rates at 6 to 24 months follow-up were evaluated. Meanwhile, analysis was also performed for comparing the secondary outcomes such as peri- and postoperative complications, operative data, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 retrospective cohort studies involving 1794 patients with SUI were analyzed based on the inclusion criteria. On the basis of our analysis, MiniArc was proven to have a noninferior clinical efficacy compared with transobturator midurethral slings with respect to the objective cure rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.03, P = .43) and subjective cure rate (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.91-1. 04, P = .38). In addition, pooled analysis showed that MiniArc had significantly lower postoperative pain scores (mean difference [MD] = -1.70, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.23, P = .02) and less postoperative groin pain (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98, P = .04). Moreover, the MiniArc group also had a significantly shorter operation time (MD = -6.12, 95% CI -8.61 to -3.64, P < .001), less blood loss (MD = -16.67, 95% CI -26.29 to -7.05, P < .001), shorter in-patient stay (MD = 1.30, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.86, P < .001), and less urinary retention risk (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.46-2.87, P = .77). However, overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a statistically significant difference in the adverse event profile for MiniArc compared with transobturator slings.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that MiniArc is an effective method treating SUI. When compared with transobturator slings, it not only has a similar high cure rates, but also is associated with shorter operation time, less blood loss, more favorable recovery time, lower postoperative pain scores, less postoperative groin pain, less urinary retention, and absence of a visible wound. However, the findings of this study should be further confirmed by well-designed prospective RCTs with a larger patient series.