Surgery versus physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence - Abstract

Background: Physiotherapy involving pelvic-floor muscle training is advocated as first-line treatment for stress urinary incontinence; midurethral-sling surgery is generally recommended when physiotherapy is unsuccessful. Data are lacking from randomized trials comparing these two options as initial therapy.

Methods: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to compare physiotherapy and midurethral-sling surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence. Crossover between groups was allowed. The primary outcome was subjective improvement, measured by means of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at 12 months.

Results: We randomly assigned 230 women to the surgery group and 230 women to the physiotherapy group. A total of 49.0% of women in the physiotherapy group and 11.2% of women in the surgery group crossed over to the alternative treatment. In an intention-to-treat analysis, subjective improvement was reported by 90.8% of women in the surgery group and 64.4% of women in the physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 26.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.1 to 34.5). The rates of subjective cure were 85.2% in the surgery group and 53.4% in the physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 31.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 22.6 to 40.3); rates of objective cure were 76.5% and 58.8%, respectively (absolute difference, 17.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.9 to 27.3). A post hoc per-protocol analysis showed that women who crossed over to the surgery group had outcomes similar to those of women initially assigned to surgery and that both these groups had outcomes superior to those of women who did not cross over to surgery.

Conclusions: For women with stress urinary incontinence, initial midurethral-sling surgery, as compared with initial physiotherapy, results in higher rates of subjective improvement and subjective and objective cure at 1 year. (Funded by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Dutch Trial Register number, NTR1248.).

Written by:
Labrie J, Berghmans BL, Fischer K, Milani AL, van der Wijk I, Smalbraak DJ, Vollebregt A, Schellart RP, Graziosi GC, van der Ploeg JM, Brouns JF, Tiersma ES, Groenendijk AG, Scholten P, Mol BW, Blokhuis EE, Adriaanse AH, Schram A, Roovers JP, Lagro-Janssen AL, van der Vaart CH   Are you the author?
University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Reference: N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1124-33
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210627


PubMed Abstract
PMID: 24047061

Read a related press release

Listen to Diane Newman, DNP, ANP-BC, FAAN discuss this study

 

 

Pelvic Health Weekly Newsletter