Cochrane · systematic review · CD013108
Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence
Baessler, K, Christmann‐Schmid, C, Maher, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecology and FertilityAMSTAR 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
8
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 25%Moderate 6 · 75%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
POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure compared to no concomitant continence procedure in women with POP and SUI
Population: women with POP and SUI
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 0.3 [0.19, 0.48] | 2 studies · 319 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 0.04 [0, 0.74] | 1 study · 134 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Vaginal POP surgery with concomitant vs delayed continence surgery: additional concomitant MUS vs delayed MUS POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 0.41 [0.12, 1.37] | 1 study · 140 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Abdominal POP surgery with vs without concomitant continence surgery: additional Burch colposuspension vs sacrocolpopexy alone: 1‐year FU POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 1.38 [0.74, 2.6] | 1 study · 47 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Vaginal POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure compared to no concomitant continence procedure in women with POP and occult SUI
Population: women with POP and occult SUI
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Vaginal POP surgery with or without concomitant continence surgery: additional MUS vs vaginal repair alone Vaginal POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 0.38 [0.26, 0.55] | 5 studies · 369 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Vaginal or abdominal POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure compared to no concomitant continence procedure in continent women with POP
Population: continent women with POP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Vaginal POP surgery with or without concomitant continence surgery: additional MUS vs vaginal repair alone Vaginal or abdominal POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 0.69 [0.47, 1] | 1 study · 220 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Abdominal POP surgery with or without concomitant continence surgery: additional Burch colposuspension vs sacrocolpopexy alone Vaginal or abdominal POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure | RR 1.31 [0.19, 9.01] | 2 studies · 379 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Vaginal POP surgery with armed mesh compared to anterior native tissue repair for continent women with POP
Population: continent women with POP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
One type of POP surgery vs another: armed anterior mesh vs anterior native tissue repair Vaginal POP surgery with armed mesh vs anterior native tissue repair | RR 1.58 [1.05, 2.37] | 7 studies · 905 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |