Glazener Cathryn Ma, Cooper Kevin, Mashayekhi Atefeh
Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, AB25 2ZD.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 31;7(7):CD001755. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001755.pub2.
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.
To determine the effects of anterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) on urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options.
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 1 September 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles.
Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included anterior vaginal repair for the treatment of urinary incontinence.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Three trial investigators were contacted for additional information.
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).
阴道前壁修补术(前路阴道修补术)是一种传统上用于治疗女性中重度压力性尿失禁(SUI)的手术。约三分之一的成年女性经历过尿失禁。压力性尿失禁给社会和受影响的女性带来了巨大的健康和经济负担。
与其他治疗方案相比,确定阴道前壁修补术(前路阴道修补术)对尿失禁的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane尿失禁组专业试验注册库(检索时间为2009年9月1日)以及相关文章的参考文献列表。
包括阴道前壁修补术治疗尿失禁的随机或半随机试验。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估试验质量。联系了三位试验研究者以获取更多信息。
共识别出10项试验,其中385名女性接受了阴道前壁修补术,627名女性接受了对照干预。一项小型试验提供的证据不足,无法评估阴道前壁修补术与物理治疗相比的效果。与膀胱颈悬吊术相比,前路修补术的表现似乎相似(一年后失败的风险比(RR)为 1.16,95%置信区间(CI)为0.86至1.56),但不能完全排除临床上的重要差异。没有试验将前路修补术与尿道下吊带手术或腹腔镜膀胱悬吊术进行比较,也没有比较替代阴道手术。根据八项试验中患者报告的治愈率,阴道前壁修补术在中期(前路修补术后一至五年内的失败率为97/259(38%),而对照为57/327(17%);RR 2.29,95%置信区间(CI)为1.70至3.08)和长期(五年后,49/128(38%)对31/145(21%);RR 2.02,95% CI为1.36至3.01)均不如开放式耻骨后膀胱悬吊术有效。其中三项试验的证据表明,这体现在尿失禁需要更多重复手术上(25/107(23%)对4/164(2%);RR 8.87,95% CI为3.28至23.94)。无论是否存在脱垂(盆腔松弛),这些结果均成立。尽管前路修补术后脱垂的女性较少(RR 0.24,95% CI为0.12至0.47),但阴道(3%)或腹部(4%)手术后后期脱垂手术的发生率似乎同样常见。关于开放式耻骨后膀胱悬吊术的类型,大多数数据涉及阴道前壁修补术与Burch膀胱悬吊术的比较。少数描述前路修补术与Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz手术比较的数据与Burch膀胱悬吊术的数据一致。
没有足够的数据来比较阴道前壁修补术与物理治疗或针悬吊术治疗女性原发性压力性尿失禁的效果。根据八项试验中的主观治愈率判断,开放式耻骨后膀胱悬吊术似乎比阴道前壁修补术更好,即使是除压力性尿失禁外还伴有脱垂的女性(六项试验)。腹部手术后尿失禁再次手术的需求也较少。然而,关于术后并发症和发病率的信息不足。一篇简要经济评论(BEC)指出,一项研究表明与无张力阴道吊带术(TVT-O)相比,阴道成形术可能更具成本效益。