Male sling versus artificial urinary sphincter for the treatment of incontinence after prostate surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence following prostate treatment (IPT) represents a significant complication that detrimentally impacts the quality of life for patients who have undergone prostate surgery. Presently, there is a scarcity of evidence regarding the preferred surgical techniques for IPT. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in the treatment of IPT.

METHODS

Data were extracted through electronic literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases until September 2023. Eligible studies included patients who underwent AUS or male sling procedures for IPT and had a follow-up duration exceeding 12 months. The primary end point was the success rate, with the secondary outcome focusing on complication rates. A fixed-effects or random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included nine studies, involving a total of 1,350 participants. No statistically significant difference in success rates was found between AUS and male sling [odds ratio (OR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01]. In terms of the complication rate, there was no significant disparity between the two procedures (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study indicated that male sling surgery yielded success and complication rates comparable to those of AUS. This suggests that male sling could serve as a viable alternative surgical option in the treatment of IPT.