子宫托在治疗女性压力性尿失禁中的作用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Julia Klein, Michelina Stoddard, Charles Rardin, Shawn Menefee, Art Sedrakyan, Stephanie Sansone, Bilal Chughtai
{"title":"子宫托在治疗女性压力性尿失禁中的作用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Julia Klein,&nbsp;Michelina Stoddard,&nbsp;Charles Rardin,&nbsp;Shawn Menefee,&nbsp;Art Sedrakyan,&nbsp;Stephanie Sansone,&nbsp;Bilal Chughtai","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Pessaries are an important conservative therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their utility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of pessaries for the treatment of SUI.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We searched for the terms \"stress urinary incontinence\" and \"pessar/y/ies/ium\" in PubMed, Embase, and Cinhal on June 10, 2020. Studies that characterized subjective and/or objective data were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for SUI were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed data quality and risk of bias according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies, including 376 patients, were included. In terms of subjective outcomes, 76% of 72 patients reported feeling continent after pessary treatment compared with 0% of 86 patients surveyed before pessary use (P < 0.0001). Both Urinary Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores decreased significantly by 46.7% (n = 155 baseline, n = 139 follow-up; P < 0.0001) and 67.8% (n = 139 baseline, n = 107 follow-up; P < 0.0001), respectively. Significant objective measures associated with pessary use included increased urethral closure pressure (n = 122; g = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 1.77; P < 0.049) and decreased pad weight (n = 129 baseline; n = 118 follow-up; g = -0.89; 95% CI, -1.986 to 0.19; P = 0.009). Adverse events significantly decreased at greater than 6 months follow-up compared with less than 6 months follow-up, including pain (31.5%, n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35; P = 0.0513) and discomfort (50%, n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41; P = 0.0268).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on both subjective and objective measures, pessaries are an effective conservative treatment option for SUI. This supports pessary use, though larger studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 6","pages":"e171-e178"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Pessaries in the Treatment of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Klein,&nbsp;Michelina Stoddard,&nbsp;Charles Rardin,&nbsp;Shawn Menefee,&nbsp;Art Sedrakyan,&nbsp;Stephanie Sansone,&nbsp;Bilal Chughtai\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Pessaries are an important conservative therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their utility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of pessaries for the treatment of SUI.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We searched for the terms \\\"stress urinary incontinence\\\" and \\\"pessar/y/ies/ium\\\" in PubMed, Embase, and Cinhal on June 10, 2020. Studies that characterized subjective and/or objective data were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for SUI were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed data quality and risk of bias according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies, including 376 patients, were included. In terms of subjective outcomes, 76% of 72 patients reported feeling continent after pessary treatment compared with 0% of 86 patients surveyed before pessary use (P < 0.0001). Both Urinary Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores decreased significantly by 46.7% (n = 155 baseline, n = 139 follow-up; P < 0.0001) and 67.8% (n = 139 baseline, n = 107 follow-up; P < 0.0001), respectively. Significant objective measures associated with pessary use included increased urethral closure pressure (n = 122; g = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 1.77; P < 0.049) and decreased pad weight (n = 129 baseline; n = 118 follow-up; g = -0.89; 95% CI, -1.986 to 0.19; P = 0.009). Adverse events significantly decreased at greater than 6 months follow-up compared with less than 6 months follow-up, including pain (31.5%, n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35; P = 0.0513) and discomfort (50%, n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41; P = 0.0268).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on both subjective and objective measures, pessaries are an effective conservative treatment option for SUI. This supports pessary use, though larger studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 6\",\"pages\":\"e171-e178\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001180","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

重要性:子宫托是治疗压力性尿失禁(SUI)的一种重要保守疗法,但很少有研究对其效用进行全面评估。目的:本研究的目的是评价子宫托治疗SUI的有效性和安全性的现有证据。研究设计:我们于2020年6月10日在PubMed、Embase和Cinhal中检索了术语“压力性尿失禁”和“pessar/y/ies/ium”。包括具有主观和/或客观数据特征的研究。排除了在儿科人群、妊娠和非SUI使用子宫托的研究。两位审稿人根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目独立筛选和评估数据质量和偏倚风险。结果:纳入10项研究,共376例患者。在主观结果方面,72名患者中有76%报告在必要使用子宫托治疗后感觉不舒服,而在必要使用子宫托前接受调查的86名患者中,这一比例为0% (P < 0.0001)。尿窘迫量表和尿失禁影响问卷得分均显著下降46.7% (n = 155基线,n = 139随访;P < 0.0001), 67.8% (n = 139基线,n = 107随访;P < 0.0001)。与必要使用相关的重要客观指标包括尿道关闭压力增加(n = 122;G = 0.56;95%置信区间[CI], -0.66 ~ 1.77;P < 0.049),垫重降低(n = 129基线;N = 118例随访;G = -0.89;95% CI, -1.986 ~ 0.19;P = 0.009)。不良事件在超过6个月的随访中显著减少,包括疼痛(31.5%,n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35;P = 0.0513)和不适(50%,n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41;P = 0.0268)。结论:根据主观和客观指标,托托是SUI的一种有效的保守治疗选择。这支持了必要的使用,尽管有必要进行更大规模的长期随访研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Pessaries in the Treatment of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Pessaries are an important conservative therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but few studies have comprehensively evaluated their utility.

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of pessaries for the treatment of SUI.

Study design: We searched for the terms "stress urinary incontinence" and "pessar/y/ies/ium" in PubMed, Embase, and Cinhal on June 10, 2020. Studies that characterized subjective and/or objective data were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for SUI were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed data quality and risk of bias according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results: Ten studies, including 376 patients, were included. In terms of subjective outcomes, 76% of 72 patients reported feeling continent after pessary treatment compared with 0% of 86 patients surveyed before pessary use (P < 0.0001). Both Urinary Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores decreased significantly by 46.7% (n = 155 baseline, n = 139 follow-up; P < 0.0001) and 67.8% (n = 139 baseline, n = 107 follow-up; P < 0.0001), respectively. Significant objective measures associated with pessary use included increased urethral closure pressure (n = 122; g = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.66 to 1.77; P < 0.049) and decreased pad weight (n = 129 baseline; n = 118 follow-up; g = -0.89; 95% CI, -1.986 to 0.19; P = 0.009). Adverse events significantly decreased at greater than 6 months follow-up compared with less than 6 months follow-up, including pain (31.5%, n = 29/92 vs 14.3%, n = 5/35; P = 0.0513) and discomfort (50%, n = 46/92 vs 29.3%, n = 12/41; P = 0.0268).

Conclusions: Based on both subjective and objective measures, pessaries are an effective conservative treatment option for SUI. This supports pessary use, though larger studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信