Synthetic vs nonsynthetic slings for female stress and mixed urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review objective and subjective success and surgical outcomes of suburethral sling surgery for female patients with stress or mixed urinary incontinence using synthetic vs nonsynthetic material with corresponding surgical approaches (retropubic or transobturator). DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science Core Collection using standardized Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) without date restrictions (PROSPERO-registered). We double-screened studies and used backward citation chaining. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies examining outcomes of retropubic or transobturator synthetic vs nonsynthetic (autologous, allograft, or xenograft) slings for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence, with available English or French full texts. We excluded minislings (single insertion point). We allowed slings for recurrent stress or mixed urinary incontinence, and slings concomitant with prolapse surgery, with at least 6 weeks of postoperative follow-up. We excluded systematic reviews, meta-analyses, review studies, case-control studies, case reports, studies that did not describe surgical approach or material, and studies of combination slings. METHODS: We evaluated study quality using RoB, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. We used pooled relative risk with 95% confidence intervals to estimate the effect of sling material type on each outcome through meta-analysis and meta-regression, as appropriate. RESULTS: We screened 4341 abstracts, assessed 104 full texts, and retained 35 articles (30 separate studies). For retropubic synthetic vs nonsynthetic slings, there was no difference in the number of objectively or subjectively continent patients. The rates of reoperation for stress urinary incontinence and overall were higher with nonautologous retropubic slings than with synthetic slings. Compared with autologous slings, retropubic synthetic slings were associated with higher subjective continence in populations with ≥25% recurrent stress urinary incontinence (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.43). There were no differences in continence between transobturator synthetic and nonsynthetic slings. Subjective satisfaction was better in the transobturator synthetic group than in the autologous sling group (relative risk, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.94). CONCLUSION: Synthetic and nonsynthetic slings have comparable objective and subjective success, with synthetic materials generally showing better operative outcomes and fewer complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".