IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0230355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Refractory overactive bladder patients who chose sacral neuromodulation therapy after failed OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Guang Yang
  • Yong Xu
  • Genyi Qu
  • Yulong Zhang

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review outcomes in patients with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) patients who underwent sacral neuromodulation therapy (SNM) therapy after unsuccessful onabotulinumtoxinA (BTX) therapy, and to compare outcomes with those who SNM as initial therapy. Methods: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, Pubmed and Embase databases from July 2002 to November 2019, to analyze randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies of SNM therapy after failed initial BTX therapy. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. A quality assessment of the included literature was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Stata 12.0 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the collected data. Results: A total of seven studies involving 319 patients were finally included. The success rate in refractory OAB patients who used SNM therapy after failed BTX therapy was 58.5%, 95% CI (0.47–0.70). There was no significant difference between refractory OAB patients who chose SNM as replacement therapy after failed BTX therapy and those who used SNM therapy as first choice [RR = 0.96, 95%CI (0.72–1.26), P = 0.735]. Conclusion: OAB patients for whom an initial choice of BTX therapy ends in failure or dissatisfaction may consider switching to SNM therapy. There is no difference in outcomes between these patients and those whose first choice was SNM therapy.

Suggested Citation

  • Guang Yang & Yong Xu & Genyi Qu & Yulong Zhang, 2020. "Refractory overactive bladder patients who chose sacral neuromodulation therapy after failed OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-10, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230355
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230355
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230355&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0230355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230355. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.