Stress urinary incontinence in women: Current and emerging therapeutic options
Shamout S., Campeau L.
Narrative Review, published in Can Urol Assoc J (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Can Urol Assoc J (2017)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 28616118
- PMCID
- PMC5461151
- DOI
- 10.5489/cuaj.4613
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
Surgical management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is most commonly achieved by midurethral synthetic sling (MUS) insertion as a first-line surgical option. A great deal of research continues to evolve new management strategies to reach an optimal balance of high efficacy and minimal adverse events. This expert opinion review provides a brief and comprehensive discussion of recent advances and ongoing research in the management of SUI, with an emphasis on single-incision mini-slings, vaginal laser treatment, and cell-based therapy. It is based on data obtained from numerous published meta-analyses and original studies identified through literature search. Single-incision mini-slings appear equally effective initially compared with standard MUS (retropubic or transobturator) for the treatment of female SUI; however, this efficacy lacks durability evidence beyond one-year followup. There is a lack of sufficient clinical evidence to currently confirm long-term safety and effectiveness of cell-therapy and non-ablative vaginal laser therapy, besides suggestion of apparent initial safety. There are still significant challenges to overcome before widespread clinical practice of the latter two modalities. Future research should be aimed at identifying groups of patients who might benefit from these minimally invasive therapeutic options.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.