Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12535443›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women.

M C Lapitan, D J Cody, A M Grant

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Burch Procedure: A Historical Perspective.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. What's a 'cure'? Patient-centred outcomes of treatments for stress urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction · 2007
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M C LapitanDepartment of Surgery, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines. mela@info.com.ph
D J Cody
A M Grant
Philippine General Hospital · PHUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary incontinence is a common and potentially debilitating problem. Open retropubic colposuspension is a surgical treatment which involves lifting the tissues near the bladder neck and proximal urethra in the area behind the anterior pubic bones to correct deficient urethral closure.

objectivesTo assess the effects of open retropubic colposuspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group specialised register (to April 2002) and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted investigators to locate extra studies. Date of the most recent search: April 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress or mixed incontinence that included open retropubic colposuspension surgery in at least one trial group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion and data extracted by two of the reviewers. Trial data were analysed by intervention. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated. MAIN

resultsThis review included 33 trials involving a total of 2403 women. Overall cure rates were 68.9% to 88.0% for open retropubic colposuspension. Two small studies suggests lower failure rates after open retropubic colposuspension than conservative treatment. Evidence from six trials showed a lower failure rate for subjective cure after open retropubic colposuspension than after anterior colporrhaphy. Such benefit was maintained over time (RR of failure 0.51; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76 before the first year, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57 at one to five years, RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.75 in periods beyond 5 years). In comparison with needle suspensions there was a lower failure rate after colposuspension in the first year after surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03), after the first year (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.71) and beyond 5 years (RR 0.32; 95% CI 15 to 0.71). Evidence from three trials in comparison with suburethral slings found no significant difference in failure rates. Patient-reported failure rates in short-, medium- and long-term follow-ups showed no significant difference between open and laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, but with wide confidence intervals. In two trials failure was less common after Burch (RR 0.38 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76) as than the Marshall Marchetti Krantz procedure at one to five year follow-up There were few data at any other follow-up. In general, the evidence available does not show a higher morbidity or complication rate with open retropubic colposuspension, compared to the other surgical techniques, although pelvic organ prolapse is more common than after anterior colporrhaphy and sling procedures. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe evidence available indicates that Open retropubic colposuspension is the most effective treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence especially in the long term. Within the first year of treatment, the overall continence rate is approximately 85-90%. After five years, approximately 70% patients can expect to be dry. Newer minimal access procedures like tension free vaginal tape look promising in comparison with open colposuspension but their long-term performance is not known. Laparoscopic colposuspension should allow speedier recovery but its relative safety and effectiveness is not known yet.

Indexed as

FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuture TechniquesUrinary IncontinenceUrinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical ProceduresVagina

Identifiers

PMID12535443
OpenAlexW4253499757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.