• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • 0 CME Hours
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
#Grand Rounds

Cochrane Update: How Effective is Laparoscopic Colposuspension for Urinary Incontinence?

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • In this update, Freites et al. (Cochrane Reviews, 2019) assessed the effectiveness of laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women vs other methods

METHODS:

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Data sources
    • Cochrane Incontinence Specialized Register (22 May 2019): Contains trials from databases such as MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP
    • Authors also handsearched journals and conference proceedings
  • Inclusion criteria
    • RCTs of women with urinary incontinence that included laparoscopic surgery in at least one arm
  • Study design and data analysis
    • The authors independently extracted data from eligible trials, assessed risk of bias | Used GRADE criteria

RESULTS:

  • 26 trials | Total of 2,271 women
    • Follow-up: Most trials only up to 18 months

Laparoscopic Colposuspension vs Open Colposuspension

  • Overall, 13 trials | 1,304 women
  • Sutures: No significant difference between two groups for subjective cure within 18 months
    • Risk ratio (RR) 1.04 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.08; high-quality evidence)
  • Mesh and staples: Uncertain if laparoscopic colposuspension is better or worse for subjective cure within 18 months
    • RR 0.75 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; very low-quality evidence)
  • Laparoscopic colposuspension may have a lower risk of perioperative complications
    • RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.94; low-quality evidence)
  • There may be the same or higher rates of bladder perforations with laparoscopic colposuspension
    • RR 1.72 (95% CI 0.90 to 3.29; moderate-quality evidence)
  • Rates for de novo detrusor overactivity and voiding dysfunction appear to be similar between the 2 approaches
  • Uncertain whether greater risk of repeat continence surgery with laparoscopic colposuspension
  • Authors could not synthesize quality of life data

Laparoscopic Colposuspension vs Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT)

  • Overall 9 trials | 412 women
  • Sutures: No significant difference between two groups for subjective cure within 18 months
    • RR 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; low-quality evidence)
  • Mesh and staples: No significant difference between the two groups for subjective cure within 18 months
    • RR 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.91; low-quality evidence)

Laparoscopic Colposuspension vs Midurethral Slings

  • Uncertain if laparoscopic colposuspension is beneficial for the following due to wide confidence intervals
    • Lower rates of repeat continence surgery: RR 0.40 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.62; low-quality evidence)
    • Perioperative complications: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; low-quality evidence)
  • Uncertain if there is any benefit for de novo detrusor overactivity or voiding dysfunction, though this remains uncertain due to the wide confidence interval
  • Authors could not synthesize quality of life data
  • No studies reported on bladder perforations

Laparoscopic Colposuspension with Two Sutures vs One Suture

  • Overall 1 trial | 161 women
  • There may be higher subjective cure rates within 18 months with two sutures compared to one suture
    • RR 1.37 (95% CI, 1.14 to 1.64; low-quality evidence)
  • Uncertain whether one suture vs two sutures
    • May have lower rates of repeat continence surgery
    • May have similar risk of perioperative complications
    • May have higher rates of voiding dysfunction
  • Bladder perforations, de novo detrusor overactivity or quality of life not reported

Laparoscopic Colposuspension with Sutures Vs Mesh And Staples

  • Overall 3 trials | 261 women
  • Uncertain whether laparoscopic colposuspension with sutures
    • May be better or worse for subjective cure within 18 months
    • May be better or worse for repeat continence surgery
  • Laparoscopic colposuspension with sutures may increase the number of perioperative complications vs mesh and staples
    • RR 1.94 (95% CI 1.09 to 3.48; low-quality evidence)
  • Bladder perforations, voiding dysfunction or quality of life not reported

CONCLUSION:

  • When judging by subjective cure of incontinence within 18 months
    • Laparoscopic colposuspension appears to be as effective as open colposuspension or midurethral sling procedures
  • Authors caution that evidence was generally low-quality and therefore limits ability to draw conclusions
  • Uncertain results likewise do not mean an absence of benefit but rather that more high-quality, long term studies are needed in the field

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women

Now You Can Get ObG Clinical Research Summaries Direct to Your Phone, with ObGFirst

Try it Free  »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All #Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence: Which Procedures are Most Effective and Safest?
Midurethral Tape and Repeat Surgery for Stress Incontinence: Is the 2nd Time the Charm?
Is Pelvic Muscle Strengthening Effective Following Pelvic Surgery for Prolapse and Incontinence?

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

ObG Library

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Fertility
  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site