Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) and Adjustable Continence Therapy (ProACT) for male stress incontinence.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
17
09
2019
accepted:
12
11
2019
entrez:
3
12
2019
pubmed:
4
12
2019
medline:
26
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Urinary incontinence is one of the most serious complications of prostate cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) compared to Adjustable Continence Therapy (proACT) for male stress urinary incotinence according to literature findings. A systematic review and meta-analysis on adjustable devices ATOMS and ProACT is presented. Studies on female or neurogenic incontinence were excluded. Differences between ATOMS and proACT in primary objective: dryness status (no-pad or one safety pad/day) after initial device adjustment, and in secondary objectives: improvement, satisfaction, complications and device durability, were estimated using random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analysis was assessed using tau2, Higgins´s I2 statistics and Cochran´s Q test. Combined data of 41 observational studies with 3059 patients showed higher dryness (68 vs. 55%; p = .01) and improvement (91 vs. 80%; p = .007) rate for ATOMS than ProACT. Mean pad-count (-4 vs. -2.5 pads/day; p = .005) and pad-test decrease (-425.7 vs. -211.4 cc; p < .0001) were also significantly lower. Satisfaction was higher for ATOMS (87 vs. 56%; p = .002) and explant rate was higher for proACT (5 vs. 24%; p < .0001). Complication rate for ProACT was also higher, but not statistically significant (17 vs. 26%; p = .07). Mean follow-up was 25.7 months, lower for ATOMS than ProACT (20.8 vs. 30.6 months; p = .02). The rate of working devices favoured ATOMS at 1-year (92 vs. 76; p < .0001), 2-years (85 vs. 61%; p = .0008) and 3-years (81 vs. 58%; p = .0001). Significant heterogeneity was evidenced, due to variable incontinence severity baseline, difficulties for a common reporting of complications, different number of adjustments and time of follow-up and absence of randomized studies. Despite the limitations that studies available are exclusively descriptive and the follow-up is limited, literature findings confirm ATOMS is more efficacious, with higher patient satisfaction and better durability than ProACT to treat male stress incontinence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Urinary incontinence is one of the most serious complications of prostate cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) compared to Adjustable Continence Therapy (proACT) for male stress urinary incotinence according to literature findings.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis on adjustable devices ATOMS and ProACT is presented. Studies on female or neurogenic incontinence were excluded. Differences between ATOMS and proACT in primary objective: dryness status (no-pad or one safety pad/day) after initial device adjustment, and in secondary objectives: improvement, satisfaction, complications and device durability, were estimated using random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analysis was assessed using tau2, Higgins´s I2 statistics and Cochran´s Q test.
RESULTS
Combined data of 41 observational studies with 3059 patients showed higher dryness (68 vs. 55%; p = .01) and improvement (91 vs. 80%; p = .007) rate for ATOMS than ProACT. Mean pad-count (-4 vs. -2.5 pads/day; p = .005) and pad-test decrease (-425.7 vs. -211.4 cc; p < .0001) were also significantly lower. Satisfaction was higher for ATOMS (87 vs. 56%; p = .002) and explant rate was higher for proACT (5 vs. 24%; p < .0001). Complication rate for ProACT was also higher, but not statistically significant (17 vs. 26%; p = .07). Mean follow-up was 25.7 months, lower for ATOMS than ProACT (20.8 vs. 30.6 months; p = .02). The rate of working devices favoured ATOMS at 1-year (92 vs. 76; p < .0001), 2-years (85 vs. 61%; p = .0008) and 3-years (81 vs. 58%; p = .0001). Significant heterogeneity was evidenced, due to variable incontinence severity baseline, difficulties for a common reporting of complications, different number of adjustments and time of follow-up and absence of randomized studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limitations that studies available are exclusively descriptive and the follow-up is limited, literature findings confirm ATOMS is more efficacious, with higher patient satisfaction and better durability than ProACT to treat male stress incontinence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31790490
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225762
pii: PONE-D-19-26165
pmc: PMC6886794
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0225762Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur Urol. 2010 Mar;57(3):430-6
pubmed: 19942340
Adv Ther. 2017 May;34(5):1173-1183
pubmed: 28405960
Urol Int. 2012;89(4):473-9
pubmed: 22965196
Urology. 2013 Jun;81(6):1308-14
pubmed: 23465144
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Nov;37(8):2854-2859
pubmed: 30178536
Actas Urol Esp. 2018 Nov;42(9):567-573
pubmed: 29929737
World J Urol. 2017 Jan;35(1):145-151
pubmed: 27156092
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012 Jun;46(3):196-200
pubmed: 22364390
J Urol. 2011 Jul;186(1):198-203
pubmed: 21575974
Urology. 2016 Apr;90:189-94
pubmed: 26773347
PLoS One. 2017 May 3;12(5):e0130867
pubmed: 28467435
GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW. 2014 Dec 17;3:Doc15
pubmed: 26504726
Urology. 2006 May;67(5):965-9
pubmed: 16698356
Urol Int. 2009;82(4):394-8
pubmed: 19506404
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(4):324-8
pubmed: 17763225
World J Urol. 2019 Jun;37(6):1173-1179
pubmed: 30225800
Urol Int. 2018;101(1):106-113
pubmed: 29953998
Urol Int. 2017;99(1):14-21
pubmed: 27598774
Int Braz J Urol. 2019 Jan-Feb;45(1):127-136
pubmed: 30521175
Cent European J Urol. 2014;67(4):387-91
pubmed: 25667760
Urologia. 2012 Dec 30;79 Suppl 19:46-9
pubmed: 23371272
Investig Clin Urol. 2016 Jan;57(1):3-13
pubmed: 26966721
Prog Urol. 2017 Dec;27(17):1098-1103
pubmed: 28847446
World J Urol. 2019 Oct;37(10):2189-2197
pubmed: 30649591
J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):956-61
pubmed: 22264469
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 4;14(4):e0214682
pubmed: 30946773
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Jan 14;87(4):306-11
pubmed: 26766803
Urology. 2017 Nov;109:184-189
pubmed: 28712889
Neurourol Urodyn. 2016 Nov;35(8):875-881
pubmed: 26397171
Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63(4):681-9
pubmed: 23219375
J Urol. 2019 Nov;202(5):1022-1028
pubmed: 31251715
Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Nov;38(8):2051-2059
pubmed: 31429982
J Urol. 2010 May;183(5):1921-6
pubmed: 20303116
Int J Urol. 2008 Oct;15(10):910-4
pubmed: 18761534
Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Jan;38(1):248-253
pubmed: 30311667
Urology. 2015 Jun;85(6):1448-52
pubmed: 26099887
Actas Urol Esp. 2018 May;42(4):267-272
pubmed: 29174630
Adv Ther. 2019 Feb;36(2):426-441
pubmed: 30560525
Urology. 2008 Feb;71(2):256-60
pubmed: 18308096
BJU Int. 2008 Nov;102(10):1426-30; discussion 1430-1
pubmed: 18564132
Actas Urol Esp. 2018 Sep;42(7):473-482
pubmed: 29642999
Arch Esp Urol. 2009 Dec;62(10):871-81
pubmed: 20068264
Urologe A. 2012 Nov;51(11):1576-83
pubmed: 22836942
BJU Int. 2005 Sep;96(4):587-94
pubmed: 16104915
Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Sep;38(7):1979-1984
pubmed: 31302928
BJU Int. 2017 May;119(5):785-792
pubmed: 27868328
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Apr;37(4):1419-1425
pubmed: 29266406
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Apr;37(4):1458-1466
pubmed: 29315765
BJU Int. 2013 Feb;111(2):296-303
pubmed: 23186285
Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Aug;2(3):245-259
pubmed: 28723370
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 17;13(7):e0197757
pubmed: 30016325