FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1570528093> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1570528093 abstract "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should be noted that TVT-Secur (Gynecare, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) is one type of single-incision sling; it has been withdrawn from the market because of poor results.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.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.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.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).Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from individual trials.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.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." @default.
• W1570528093 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1570528093 creator A5005274209 @default.
• W1570528093 creator A5032035046 @default.
• W1570528093 creator A5032265476 @default.
• W1570528093 creator A5052391373 @default.
• W1570528093 date "2017-07-26" @default.
• W1570528093 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W1570528093 title "Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women" @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1484993839 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1597040469 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1604981707 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1938334805 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1957213116 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1963585399 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1975400159 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1980942135 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1981457188 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1986823668 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1990968986 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1992799624 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1999026593 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W1999142601 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2003480454 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2016664839 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2035681840 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2036978004 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2037394449 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2047215630 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2050097352 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2054742465 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2055936402 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2058789158 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2065918986 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2066288167 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2071999047 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2072902459 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2083257325 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2087413951 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2092440459 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2099985151 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2105560064 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2113034477 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2130676574 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2137328961 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2142136460 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2148643718 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2154390725 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2158469871 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2166507480 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2172107545 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2315060199 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2316151012 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2321692817 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2336365076 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2410833089 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2416343585 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2428648366 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2442657131 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W2893708468 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W4231568538 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W4236235736 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W4249071662 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W4250854757 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W82163743 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W93159392 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W94172784 @default.
• W1570528093 cites W166909988 @default.
• W1570528093 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008709.pub3" @default.
• W1570528093 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6483163" @default.
• W1570528093 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28746980" @default.
• W1570528093 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W1570528093 type Work @default.
• W1570528093 sameAs 1570528093 @default.
• W1570528093 citedByCount "67" @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932013 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932014 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932015 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932016 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932017 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932018 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932019 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932020 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932021 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932022 @default.
• W1570528093 countsByYear W15705280932023 @default.
• W1570528093 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1570528093 hasAuthorship W1570528093A5005274209 @default.
• W1570528093 hasAuthorship W1570528093A5032035046 @default.
• W1570528093 hasAuthorship W1570528093A5032265476 @default.
• W1570528093 hasAuthorship W1570528093A5052391373 @default.
• W1570528093 hasBestOaLocation W15705280932 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C178103971 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C197934379 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C2778531004 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C2779523193 @default.
• W1570528093 hasConcept C2779967601 @default.

• next