Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Atefeh Mashayekhi
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Background: Anterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. About a third of adult women experience urinary incontinence. SUI imposes significant health and economic burden to the society and the women affected. Objectives: To determine the effects of anterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) on urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 1 September 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included anterior vaginal repair for the treatment of urinary incontinence. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Three trial investigators were contacted for additional information. Main results: Ten trials were identified which included 385 women having an anterior vaginal repair and 627 who received comparison interventions. A single small trial provided insufficient evidence to assess anterior vaginal repair in comparison with physical therapy. The performance of anterior repair in comparison with bladder neck needle suspension appeared similar (risk ratio (RR) for failure after one year 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.56), but clinically important differences could not be confidently ruled out. No trials compared anterior repair with suburethral sling operations or laparoscopic colposuspensions, or compared alternative vaginal operations. Anterior vaginal repair was less effective than open abdominal retropubic suspension based on patient-reported cure rates in eight trials both in the medium term (failure rate within one to five years after anterior repair 97/259 (38%) versus 57/327 (17%); RR 2.29, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 1.70 to 3.08) and in the long term (after five years, (49/128 (38%) versus 31/145 (21%); RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.01). There was evidence from three of these trials that this was reflected in a need for more repeat operations for incontinence (25/107 (23%) versus 4/164 (2%); RR 8.87, 95% CI 3.28 to 23.94). These findings held, irrespective of the co-existence of prolapse (pelvic relaxation). Although fewer women had a prolapse after anterior repair (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47), later prolapse operation appeared to be equally common after vaginal (3%) or abdominal (4%) operation. In respect of the type of open abdominal retropubic suspension, most data related to comparisons of anterior vaginal repair with Burch colposuspension. The few data describing comparison of anterior repair with the Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz procedure were consistent with those for Burch colposuspension. Authors' conclusions: There were not enough data to allow comparison of anterior vaginal repair with physical therapy or needle suspension for primary urinary stress incontinence in women. Open abdominal retropubic suspension appeared to be better than anterior vaginal repair judged on subjective cure rates in eight trials, even in women who had prolapse in addition to stress incontinence (six trials). The need for repeat incontinence surgery was also less after the abdominal operation. However, there was not enough information about postoperative complications and morbidity.A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified one study suggesting that vaginoplasty may be more cost-effective compared with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT-O).
Author(s): Glazener CMA, Cooper K, Mashayekhi A
Publication type: Review
Publication status: Published
Journal: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year: 2017
Volume: 2017
Issue: 7
Online publication date: 31/07/2017
Acceptance date: 02/04/2016
ISSN (print): 1469-493X
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Ltd
URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001755.pub2
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001755.pub2
