Objectives The combination of prolapse surgery with an incontinence procedure can reduce the incidence of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after surgery, but may increase adverse events. We compared the effectiveness and safety of prolapse surgery versus combined prolapse and incontinence surgery in women with pelvic organ prolapse.Design and setting Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE, the Cochrane Library and the register of Current Controlled Trials were searched for randomised trials (restricted to Burch colposuspension and midurethral sling as incontinence procedure) from 1995 to 2013 limited to the English literature.Methods Two reviewers selected eligible articles and extracted the data. Pooling for SUI was based on three patient groups: (1) women with coexisting SUI; (2) women asymptomatic for SUI; and (3) women with occult SUI. For adverse events, pooling was based on incontinence procedure.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was SUI. The secondary outcomes were treatment for SUI, bladder storage symptoms, obstructive voiding and adverse events.Results Seven trials were included. Pooling for women with coexisting SUI was possible for objective SUI with two studies and showed no difference. Statistical (I 2 = 95%) and clinical heterogeneity was, however, high. The largest study showed a lower incidence of persisting SUI (5% versus 23%) and treatment for this (0% versus 57%) in women who underwent prolapse repair with a midurethral sling. The second study did not find a difference in women undergoing a sacrocolpopexy with or without Burch colposuspension. In asymptomatic women, combination surgery resulted in a lower incidence of de novo subjective SUI (two studies; 24% versus 41%; relative risk [RR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.9; I 2 = 36%) and the need for subsequent anti-incontinence surgery (three studies; 2% versus 7%; RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8; I 2 = 13%). For the outcome objective SUI, pooling was possible for five studies, but statistical heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 82%) and the difference was not statistically significant. In the subgroup of women with occult stress incontinence, we found a lower incidence of objective SUI after combination surgery (two studies; 22% versus 52%; RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; I 2 = 32%). There were no differences in bladder storage symptoms, urgency incontinence or long-term obstructive voiding symptoms. Adverse events (two studies; 15% versus 10%; RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5; I 2 = 0%) and prolonged catheterisation (three studies; 6% versus 1%; RR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.5-13.3; I 2 = 0%)were more frequent after vaginal prolapse repair with a midurethral sling.Conclusions Combination surgery reduces the risk of postoperative stress incontinence, but short-term voiding difficulties and adverse events were more frequent after combination surgery with a midurethral sling.Keywords Burch colposuspension, meta-analysis, midurethral sling, pelvic organ prolapse, review, stress urinary incontinence.Please cite this paper as: van der Ploeg JM, van der Steen A, Oude Rengerink K, va...

Objective To compare transvaginal prolapse repair combined with midurethral sling (MUS) versus prolapse repair only.Design Multi-centre randomised trial.Setting Fourteen teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.Population Women with symptomatic stage two or greater pelvic organ prolapse (POP), and subjective or objective stress urinary incontinence (SUI) without prolapse reduction.Methods Women were randomly assigned to undergo vaginal prolapse repair with or without MUS. Analysis was according to intention to treat.Main outcome measures The primary outcome at 12 months' follow-up was the absence of urinary incontinence (UI) assessed with the Urogenital Distress Inventory and treatment for SUI or overactive bladder. Secondary outcomes included complications.Results One hundred and thirty-four women were analysed at 12 months' follow-up (63 in MUS and 71 in control group). More women in the MUS group reported the absence of UI and SUI; respectively 62% versus 30% UI (relative risk [RR] 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-3.15) and 78% versus 39% SUI (RR 1.97; 95% CI 1.44-2.71). Fewer women underwent treatment for postoperative SUI in the MUS group (10% versus 37%; RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11-0.59). In the control group, 12 women (17%) underwent MUS after prolapse surgery versus none in the MUS group. Severe complications were more common in the MUS group, but the difference was not statistically significant (16% versus 6%; RR 2.82; 95% CI 0.93-8.54).Conclusions Women with prolapse and co-existing SUI are less likely to have SUI after transvaginal prolapse repair with MUS compared with prolapse repair only. However, only 17% of the women undergoing POP surgery needed additional MUS. A wellinformed decision balancing risks and benefits of both strategies should be tailored to individual women.Keywords Midurethral sling, pelvic organ prolapse, randomised, stress urinary incontinence.Tweetable abstract Combination of prolapse repair with midurethral sling reduces the risk of postoperative stress incontinence.Please cite this paper as: van der Ploeg JM, Oude Rengerink K, van der Steen A, van Leeuwen JHS, Stekelenburg J, Bongers MY, Weemhoff M, Mol BW, van der Vaart CH, Roovers J-PWR, on behalf of the Dutch Urogynaecology Consortium*. Transvaginal prolapse repair with or without the addition of a midurethral sling in women with genital prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a randomised trial. BJOG 2015;122:1022-1030.*The complete list of authors and collaborators from the Dutch Urogynaecology Consortium are listed in Supporting Information Appendix S1.Trial registration: The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR1197 (www.trialregister.nl).

No abstract