Advances in Urology / 2022 / Article / Tab 4 / Review Article
Comparison of Different Invasive Devices for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy Table 4 36 prospective clinical trials included in the analysis: posttreatment results. Number of cases; mean ± SD or median and (range).
Author N of patients Treatment groups (A, B, C, D, and E) N pad/day (post) 1 h pad test (g) (post) 24 h pad test (g) (post) ICIQ-UI-SF (post) % Pad free (post) Suzuki et al. [10 ] 4 B 1.8 ± 1.3 — — — 50% Suzuki et al. [10 ] 4 B 0.5 ± 0.6 — — — 50% Migliari et al. [11 ] 49 B — — — — 67% Bauer et al. [31 ] 115 B — — 24.7 (0–258) 5.3 (0–17) 68.8% Bauer et al. [30 ] 137 B 2.1 (0–20) 47.6 (0–320) — 9.2 (0–21) 51.6% Migliari et al. [37 ] 9 B — — — — 55.5% Bauer et al. [12 ] 124 B 0 ± 0.5 8.6 (0–45) 13.4 (0–125) 3.8 ± 4.2 55.8% Ferro et al. [28 ] 29 B 0.3 ± 0.5 — 2.6 ± 5.4 0.9 ± 2.0 Galiano et al. [27 ] 52 B 0.7 ± 0.9 — 43.4 ± 109.9 — 52.9% Leruth et al. [23 ] 173 B — — — — 49% Zaragoza et al. [22 ] 4 B — — — — 50% John et al. [21 ] 16 B 1.0 (0–10) — — — 69% Collado et al. [15 ] 94 B — — — 2.1 (0–7) 75% Collado et al. [14 ] 27 B — — 29.6 (19–40) 3.4 (0–13) Trigo Rocha et al. [36 ] 40 D 0.6 ± 1.1 — — — 50% Correia Lima et al. [32 ] 15 D —- — 75.72 ± 95.29 7.3 ± 7.2 Lai et al. [24 ] 129 D 1.1 ± 0.1 (0–8) — — — Trigo Rocha et al. [20 ] 25 E 1.8 ± 1.6 — — — 65% Bauer et al. [41 ] 24 B 2.7 (0–12) 47 (0–138) — 11.5 (0–21) 25% Noordhof et al. [35 ] 143 E 0.2 (0–2) — — — 50.6% Seweryn et al. [34 ] 38 C 1.4 (0–10) — 115.0 (0.1500) — 60.5% Kim et al. [33 ] 64 C 0.8 ± 1.2 — — 10.55 ± 6.2 60.9% Renè Yiou et al. [25 ] 20 E 0.3 ± 0.9 — — 5.7 ± 5.7 66.7% Renè Yiou et al. [29 ] 40 B 0.8 ± 1.2 — — 8.1 ± 5.6 51.5% Hoda et al. [26 ] 124 C 1.8 ± 1.2 (0–7) — — — 61.6% Hoda et al. [26 ] 99 C 1.3 (0–8) — 79.7 (0–285) — 63%% Martens et al. [19 ] 29 E 3.1 (0–5) — — — 31% Introini et al. [18 ] 66 C — — — — 79% Le Portz et al. [17 ] 93 B — — 40 (0–185) — 34.4% Dikranian et al. [16 ] 20 A 1.4 (0–2) — — — 56% Dikranian et al. [16 ] 16 B 0.4 (0–1) — — — 87% Gregori et al. [13 ] 11 E — — 17 ± 2.7 — Cestari et al. [9 ] 120 B — — — 1.8±-3.1 98% Van Uhm et al. [38 ] 10 A — — 40.3 (5.9–130.6) 16.0 (12.5–17.5) 10% Cestari et al. [39 ] 60 B 0.4 ± 0,8 — — 1.8 ± 3.4 97% Stephen J et al. [40 ] 15 B — — — — 67% Crivellaro et al. [21 ] 46 E 2.5 (0–5) — — — 68% Crivellaro et al. [21 ] 38 B 1.4 (0–3) — — — 64% Queissert et al. [43 ] 12 C 0.9 — 70.0 (0–700.0) 5.5 75%
Note . Treatment group: A = bulking agent, B = fixed sling, C = adjustable sling, D = artificial sphincter, and E = ProACT. Grey horizontal rows represent the second arm of treatment in the same trial.