FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2009156648> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2009156648 endingPage "71.e27" @default.
• W2009156648 startingPage "71.e1" @default.
• W2009156648 abstract "ObjectiveUnderstanding the long-term comparative effectiveness of competing surgical repairs is essential as failures after primary interventions for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may result in a third of women requiring repeat surgery.Study DesignWe conducted a systematic review including English-language randomized controlled trials from 1990 through April 2013 with a minimum 12 months of follow-up comparing a sling procedure for SUI to another sling or Burch urethropexy. When at least 3 randomized controlled trials compared the same surgeries for the same outcome, we performed random effects model metaanalyses to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs).ResultsFor midurethral slings (MUS) vs Burch, metaanalysis of objective cure showed no significant difference (OR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73–1.89). Therefore, we suggest either intervention; the decision should balance potential adverse events (AEs) and concomitant surgeries. For women considering pubovaginal sling vs Burch, the evidence favored slings for both subjective and objective cure. We recommend pubovaginal sling to maximize cure outcomes. For pubovaginal slings vs MUS, metaanalysis of subjective cure favored MUS (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18–0.85). Therefore, we recommend MUS. For obturator slings vs retropubic MUS, metaanalyses for both objective (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93–1.45) and subjective cure (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91–1.51) favored retropubic slings but were not significant. Metaanalysis of satisfaction outcomes favored obturator slings but was not significant (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52–1.13). AEs were variable between slings; metaanalysis showed overactive bladder symptoms were more common following retropubic slings (OR, 1.413; 95% CI, 1.01–1.98, P = .046). We recommend either retropubic or obturator slings for cure outcomes; the decision should balance AEs. For minislings vs full-length MUS, metaanalyses of objective (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 2.15–8.05) and subjective (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.36–5.17) cure both significantly favored full-length slings. Therefore, we recommend a full-length MUS.ConclusionSurgical procedures for SUI differ for success rates and complications, and both should be incorporated into surgical decision-making. Low- to high-quality evidence permitted mostly level-1 recommendations when guidelines were possible. Understanding the long-term comparative effectiveness of competing surgical repairs is essential as failures after primary interventions for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) may result in a third of women requiring repeat surgery. We conducted a systematic review including English-language randomized controlled trials from 1990 through April 2013 with a minimum 12 months of follow-up comparing a sling procedure for SUI to another sling or Burch urethropexy. When at least 3 randomized controlled trials compared the same surgeries for the same outcome, we performed random effects model metaanalyses to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs). For midurethral slings (MUS) vs Burch, metaanalysis of objective cure showed no significant difference (OR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73–1.89). Therefore, we suggest either intervention; the decision should balance potential adverse events (AEs) and concomitant surgeries. For women considering pubovaginal sling vs Burch, the evidence favored slings for both subjective and objective cure. We recommend pubovaginal sling to maximize cure outcomes. For pubovaginal slings vs MUS, metaanalysis of subjective cure favored MUS (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18–0.85). Therefore, we recommend MUS. For obturator slings vs retropubic MUS, metaanalyses for both objective (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93–1.45) and subjective cure (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91–1.51) favored retropubic slings but were not significant. Metaanalysis of satisfaction outcomes favored obturator slings but was not significant (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52–1.13). AEs were variable between slings; metaanalysis showed overactive bladder symptoms were more common following retropubic slings (OR, 1.413; 95% CI, 1.01–1.98, P = .046). We recommend either retropubic or obturator slings for cure outcomes; the decision should balance AEs. For minislings vs full-length MUS, metaanalyses of objective (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 2.15–8.05) and subjective (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.36–5.17) cure both significantly favored full-length slings. Therefore, we recommend a full-length MUS. Surgical procedures for SUI differ for success rates and complications, and both should be incorporated into surgical decision-making. Low- to high-quality evidence permitted mostly level-1 recommendations when guidelines were possible." @default.
• W2009156648 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5000652631 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5000950219 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5001777534 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5005203665 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5008088058 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5009370331 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5012567371 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5025896988 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5029514111 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5031450375 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5035578094 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5043964247 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5068172986 @default.
• W2009156648 creator A5076782692 @default.
• W2009156648 date "2014-07-01" @default.
• W2009156648 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2009156648 title "Sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and metaanalysis" @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1499600290 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1550289343 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1590203969 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1750172824 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1957213116 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1965098332 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1971044274 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1974329730 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W19792344 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1979290726 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1979532660 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1983995597 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1985939362 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1986233190 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1986635141 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1986660389 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1988080554 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1988176341 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1989339629 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1990946044 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1992006435 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1993801225 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1996447369 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W1998911511 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2000026260 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2001064937 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2001777876 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2003943368 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2004489444 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2004798888 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2005221293 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2011789222 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2012371200 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2016057430 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2016664839 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2017227004 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2019896219 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2020195439 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2022092259 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2022576752 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2027656895 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2028574911 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2029695177 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2031184467 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2031745076 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2033906730 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2034376224 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2036480357 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2037394449 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2041520124 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2043037022 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2047956039 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2048977334 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2049674834 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2053812973 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2054592867 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2054742465 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2054747710 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2055865333 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2055907153 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2059005821 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2059307891 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2059769531 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2064577979 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2065341100 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2065672921 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2069018582 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2071999047 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2072902459 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2074309207 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2075423358 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2079599380 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2082085118 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2083184092 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2083257325 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2087791639 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2092553856 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2096998881 @default.
• W2009156648 cites W2099271075 @default.

• next