Surgical interventions for stress urinary incontinence
BMJ 2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2350 (Published 05 June 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;365:l2350Linked research
Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence
Linked opinion
What next for transvaginal mesh?
- Emily Carter, Cochrane fellow1,
- Rufus Cartwright, subspecialty trainee urogynaecology2
- 1Cochrane UK, Oxford, UK
- 2John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 8HU, UK
- Correspondence to: R Cartwright rufus.cartwright{at}ouh.nhs.uk
Stress urinary incontinence—defined as leaking urine with coughing, sneezing, or exertion—affects more than one in 10 adult women,1 and represents a large unmet health need. The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis by Imamura and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.l1842) includes and updates eight earlier Cochrane reviews, to provide a unified summary of comparative efficacy and safety for all contemporary surgical procedures for stress incontinence.2
From the late 1990s, there has been a rapid progression in surgical techniques for management of stress incontinence. The advent of the polypropylene midurethral sling seemed to many surgeons like a revolutionary advance, compared with earlier and more invasive options such as open colposuspension and native tissue fascial slings. The midurethral sling was a technically simple day-case procedure, with excellent efficacy rates and seemingly lower morbidity than previous procedures. It rapidly became the most widely offered procedure in many countries,3 and with its popularity, overall …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.