Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 May 3;12(5):e0130867.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130867. eCollection 2017.

Surgical treatment for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Yu-Chi Chen  1 , Pin-Hsuan Lin  2 , Yann-Yuh Jou  3 , Victor Chia-Hsiang Lin  1   4   5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Surgical treatment for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Yu-Chi Chen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of the male sling and artificial urinary sphincter on treating post-prostatectomy incontinence by evaluating daily pad use, cure rate, frequency of improvement in incontinence, and quality of life.

Methods: Medline, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (until March 31, 2014) for studies that investigated the effectiveness of artificial urinary sphincter or sling surgical treatments for prostate cancer. The primary outcome was daily pad use before and after surgery and secondary outcomes were quality of life before and after surgery, and frequency of cures (no need to use of a pad for at least 1 day) and improvements (decreased pad usage) in incontinence after surgery.

Results: We found that that both the sling and artificial urinary sphincter significantly decreased the number of pads used per day by about 3 (P-values <0.001) and increased the quality of life compared with before intervention (P-values < 0.001). In addition, the cure rate and was around 60%. Intervention resulted in improvement in incontinence by about 25% (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that both sling and artificial urinary sphincter interventions are effective in reducing incontinence and improving the patient's quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Study selection flow chart.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Meta-analysis for daily pad amount for patients treated with sling (A) and AUS (B).
Fig 3
Fig 3
Meta-analysis for cured rate for patients treated with sling (A) and AUS (B).
Fig 4
Fig 4
Meta-analysis for improve rate for patients treated with sling (A) and AUS (B).
Fig 5
Fig 5
Meta-analysis for QOL score for patients treated with sling (A) and AUS (B).
Fig 6
Fig 6
Sensitivity -analysis for daily pad amount for patients treated with sling (A) and AUS (B).
Fig 7
Fig 7. Funnel plot for publication bias for daily pad amount for patients treated with sling.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62: 10– 29. doi: 10.3322/caac.20138 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Trost L, Elliott DS. Male stress urinary incontinence: a review of surgical treatment options and outcomes. Adv Urol. 2012;2012: 287489 doi: 10.1155/2012/287489 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A. Incontinence and erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: a review. ScientificWorldJournal. 2005;5: 747–758. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2005.94 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62: 405–417. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamakis I, Vasileiou I, Constantinides CA. The treatment of iatrogenic male incontinence: latest results and future perspectives. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2013;8: 36–41. - PubMed