Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMed

Regenerative medicine and injection therapies in stress urinary incontinence.

Hillary CJ., Roman S., MacNeil S., Aicher WK., Stenzl A., Chapple CR.

Narrative Review, published in Nat Rev Urol (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Nat Rev Urol (2020)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
31974507
DOI
10.1038/s41585-019-0273-4

Abstract (original English)

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common and bothersome condition. Anti-incontinence surgery has high cure rates, but concerns about mesh tapes have resulted in the resurgence of surgical procedures that involve increased abdominopelvic dissection and morbidity. Injection therapy with urethral bulking agents or stem cell formulations have been developed as minimally invasive alternatives. Many synthetic and biological bulking agents have been trialled, but several have been discontinued owing to safety concerns. The use of Macroplastique and Contigen has the largest evidence base, but, overall, success rates seem to be similar between the various agents and positive outcomes are poorly sustained for more than 6 months. Furthermore, subjective cure rates, although initially high, also deteriorate over time. The available data consistently demonstrate manifestly poorer outcomes for injection therapies than for surgery. Stem cell treatments are thought to functionally regenerate the urethral sphincter in patients with suspected intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Autologous adipose and muscle-derived stem cells seem to be the intuitive cell source, as they are comparatively abundant, can be harvested and cause minimal donor site morbidity. To date, only a few small clinical studies have been reported and most data are derived from animal models. The success rates of stem cell inj

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Biocompatible MaterialsHumansInjections, IntralesionalRegenerative MedicineStem Cell TransplantationUrethral DiseasesUrinary Incontinence, Stress

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.