Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Patient's Desire and Real Availability Concerning Supportive Measures Accompanying Radical Prostatectomy: Differences between Certified Prostate Cancer Centers and Non-Certified Centers Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes within the Cross-Sectional Study Improve

Certification as a prostate cancer center requires the offer of several supportive measures to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it remains unclear how patients estimate the relevance of these measures and whether the availability of these measures differs between certified prostate cancer centers (CERTs) and non-certified centers (NCERTs). In 20 German urologic centers, a survey comprising questions on the relevance of 15 supportive measures was sent to 1000 patients at a median of 15 months after RP. Additionally, patients were asked to rate the availability of these measures using a four-item Likert scale. The aim of this study was to compare these ratings between CERTs and NCERTs. The response rate was 75.0%. In total, 480 patients underwent surgery in CERTs, and 270 in NCERTs. Patients rated 6/15 supportive measures as very relevant: preoperative medical counselling concerning treatment options, a preoperative briefing answering last questions, preoperative pelvic floor exercises (PFEs), postoperative PFEs, postoperative social support, and postoperative rehabilitation addressing physical fitness recovery. These ratings showed no significant difference between CERTs and NCERTs (p = 0.133-0.676). In addition, 4/9 of the remaining criteria were rated as more detailed by patients in CERTs. IMPROVE represents the first study worldwide to evaluate a patient-reported assessment of the supportive measures accompanying RP. Pertinent offers vary marginally between CERTs and NCERTs.

Evaluation of Benefits and Harms of Surgical Treatments for Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

No meta-analysis has comprehensively addressed both benefits and harms, or the certainty of evidence of the implantable continence devices used in men to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical treatments for patients suffering from PPI and assess the certainty of evidence. The primary benefit was cure (one or fewer pad per day), and the primary harm was reoperations defined by surgical procedures following implantation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We perform a search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. We included observational studies addressing PPI surgical interventions if they involved cohorts of ≥50 participants. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach provided the framework for certainty of evidence assessment informed by value and preference judgments provided by patients, and an advocacy group member (Canadian Cancer Society).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of 85 observational studies involving 13 100 patients, three addressed bulking agents, 35 male synthetic slings, ten adjustable continence therapies (ACTs), and 37 artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs). Cure was 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-51.4, I2 = 92.8%, very-low-quality evidence) for bulking agents, 58.6% (95% CI: 51.3-65.5, I2 = 89.1%, low-quality evidence) for slings, 63.2% (95% CI: 57.6-68.5, I2 = 22.5%, very-low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 74.0% (95% CI:61.2-83.7, I2 = 92.1%, very-low-quality evidence) for AUS. Estimated rates of reoperation were 5.8% (95% CI: 1.9-11.6, I2 = 94.1%, moderate-quality evidence) for slings, 23.8% (95% CI: 5.9-61.0, I2 = 95.5%, low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 22.2% (95% CI: 15.2-31.3, I2 = 92.3%, high-quality evidence) for AUS.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence regarding the benefits of surgical interventions for PPI remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. These results should guide consent procedures for PPI surgery in the context of shared decision-making, with disclosure of the uncertainty of evidence.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Despite being used worldwide, available evidence regarding the benefits of surgeries to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. This highlights the need for a more rigorous evaluation process for commercially available surgical devices.