Oestrogens for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: It is possible that oestrogen deficiency may be an aetiological factor in the development of urinary incontinence in women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oestrogens used for the treatment of urinary incontinence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (November 2002) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent searches: November 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included oestrogens in at least one arm, in women with symptomatic or urodynamic diagnoses of stress, urge or mixed incontinence or other urinary symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion by the reviewers. Data were extracted by all three reviewers and cross checked. Trial results were analysed within clinical subgroups or by intervention. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty eight trials were identified which included 2926 women. Sample sizes ranged from 16 to 1525. The trials used varying combinations of type of oestrogen, dose, duration of treatment and length of follow up. Outcome data were not reported consistently and were available for only a minority of trials. In the 15 trials that compared oestrogen with placebo, 374 women received oestrogen and 344 placebo. Subjective impression of cure was higher amongst those treated with oestrogen for all categories of incontinence (36/101, 36% versus 20/96, 21%; RR for cure 1.61, 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.49). When subjective cure and improvement were considered together, a statistically higher cure and improvement rate was shown for both urge (35/61, 57% versus 16/58, 28% on placebo) and stress (46/107, 43% versus 29/109, 27%) incontinence. For women with urge incontinence, the chance of cure or improvement was approximately a quarter higher again than in women with stress incontinence. Taking all trials together, the data suggested that about 50% of women treated with oestrogen were cured or improved compared with about 25% on placebo. Overall, there were around 1 to 2 fewer voids in 24 hours amongst women treated with oestrogen. The effect again appeared to be larger amongst women with urge incontinence. There were no statistically significant differences in respect of frequency, nocturia or urgency. No serious adverse events were reported although some women experienced vaginal spotting, breast tenderness or nausea. In a large trial conducted amongst women with heart disease, data from a subset who had incontinence suggested that women treated with a combination of oestrogen and a progestogen had lower subjective cure or improvement rates compared to the placebo group (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95). The data were too few to address other questions about oestrogens compared with, or in combination with, other treatments, different types of oestrogen or different modes of delivery. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Oestrogen treatment can improve or cure incontinence and the evidence suggests that this is more likely with urge incontinence. There was little evidence from the trials after oestrogen treatment had finished and none about long-term effects. Combined oestrogen and progesterone appeared to reduce the likelihood of cure or improvement. There were too few data to address reliably other aspects of oestrogen therapy such as oestrogen type, dose and route of administration. However, the risk of endometrial and breast cancer after long-term use suggests that oestrogen treatment should be for limited periods, especially in women with an intact uterus.

Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colposuspension is a relatively new operation for the treatment of women with stress urinary incontinence with the presumed advantages over traditional Burch colposuspension of avoiding major incisions, shorter hospital stay, and quicker return to normal activities. A variety of approaches and methods are used. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of laparoscopic colposuspension surgery on urinary incontinence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group specialised register. The date of the most recent search was April 2001. Additional trials were sought from other sources such as reference lists, conference proceedings, reviews and unpublished research. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with symptomatic or urodynamic diagnosis of stress or mixed incontinence that included laparoscopic surgery in at least one arm of the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion by the reviewers. Data were extracted by two of the reviewers and cross checked by another. Trial data were analysed by intervention. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Eight eligible trials were identified. Five included 233 women receiving a laparoscopic and 254 women an open colposuspension. Whilst the women's subjective impression of cure seemed similar for both procedures up to 18 months there was some evidence of poorer results on objective outcomes. A single trial suggested poorer long-term performance, but this may reflect surgical inexperience of laparoscopic colposuspension. No significant differences were observed for post-operative urgency, voiding dysfunction or de novo detrusor instability. Trends were shown towards a higher complication rate, longer operating time, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, quicker return to normal activities, and shorter duration of catheterisation for laparoscopic compared with open colposuspension. Significantly higher subjective and objective (dry on 'ultrashort' pad test) one year cure rates were found for women randomised to two paravaginal sutures compared with one suture in a single trial (89% vs 65% and 83% vs 58% respectively). One study compared sutures with mesh and staples for laparoscopic colposuspension but it was too small to allow a reliable comparison. One study compared transperitoneal with extraperitoneal access for laparoscopic colposuspension but it was also small and of poor quality. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The long-term performance of laparoscopic colposuspension is uncertain. Currently available evidence suggests that it may be poorer than open colposuspension. Like other laparoscopically performed operations, laparoscopic colposuspension leads to a quicker recovery, but takes longer to perform and may be associated with more surgical complications. If it is performed, two paravaginal sutures appear to be more effective than one. The place of laparoscopic colposuspension in clinical practice should become clearer when ongoing trials are reported and when there are more data available describing long-term cure results.