Cochrane · systematic review · CD009407
Interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women
Bakali, E, Johnson, E, Buckley, BS, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
IncontinenceAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
15
Included studies
NR
No studies 15 · 83.3%Ungraded 3 · 16.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Repeat midurethral tape (any type) versus any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables)
Population: women with recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive midurethral tape surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of women whose incontinence was improved or cured ‐ Repeat midurethral tape (any type) vs any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Objective cure rates in the longer‐term ‐ more than 12 months, Repeat midurethral tape (any type) vs any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
General health status measures ‐ e.g. Short‐Form 36 Repeat midurethral tape (any type) vs any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Condition‐specific instruments designed to assess incontinence ‐ e.g. BFLUTS Repeat midurethral tape (any type) vs any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Repeat continence surgery Repeat midurethral tape (any type) vs any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Repeat midurethral tape (any type) vs any other non‐tape surgical treatment (e.g. traditional sling, colposuspension, injectables) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
One type of repeat midurethral tape versus another type of repeat midurethral tape
Population: women with recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive midurethral tape surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of women whose incontinence was improved or cured ‐ One type of repeat midurethral tape vs another type of repeat midurethral tape | no estimate extracted | 46 participants | Ungraded |
Objective cure rates in the longer‐term ‐ more than 12 months, One type of repeat midurethral tape vs another type of repeat midurethral tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
General health status measures ‐ e.g. Short‐Form 36 One type of repeat midurethral tape vs another type of repeat midurethral tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Condition‐specific instruments designed to assess incontinence ‐ e.g. BFLUTS One type of repeat midurethral tape vs another type of repeat midurethral tape | no estimate extracted | 46 participants | Ungraded |
Repeat continence surgery One type of repeat midurethral tape vs another type of repeat midurethral tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events One type of repeat midurethral tape vs another type of repeat midurethral tape | no estimate extracted | 46 participants | Ungraded |
Surgery with excision of failed tape versus surgery without excision of tape
Population: women with recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive midurethral tape surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of women whose incontinence was improved or cured ‐ Surgery with excision of failed tape vs surgery without excision of tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Objective cure rates in the longer‐term ‐ more than 12 months, Surgery with excision of failed tape vs surgery without excision of tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
General health status measures ‐ e.g. Short‐Form 36 Surgery with excision of failed tape vs surgery without excision of tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Condition‐specific instruments designed to assess incontinence ‐ e.g. BFLUTS Surgery with excision of failed tape vs surgery without excision of tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Repeat continence surgery Surgery with excision of failed tape vs surgery without excision of tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Surgery with excision of failed tape vs surgery without excision of tape | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |