Search

Objective Design Setting Population Methods Main Outcome Measures Results Conclusions To investigate pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD; urinary incontinence (UI), faecal incontinence (FI) and prolapse) ≥20 years after childbirth and their association with delivery mode history and demographic characteristics.Cohort study with long‐term follow‐up.Maternity units in Aberdeen and Birmingham (UK) and Dunedin (NZ).Women giving birth in 1993/1994.Postal questionnaires at 20 (New Zealand) or 26 (United Kingdom) years after index birth (n = 6195). Regression analyses investigated associations between risk factors and UI, FI and prolapse symptoms.Prevalence of self‐reported UI, FI, ‘something coming down’ from or in the vagina (SCD), and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse‐Symptom Score, and relationships with delivery method.Thirty‐seven per cent (n = 2270) responded at 20/26 years, of whom 61% reported UI (59% of whom reported more severe UI), 22% FI and 17% prolapse symptoms. Having only caesarean section (CS) was associated with a significantly lower risk of UI (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46–0.85), FI (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42–0.96) and SCD (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27–0.74) compared to only spontaneous vaginal deliveries (SVDs). Having any forceps delivery was associated with reporting FI compared to only SVDs (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00–1.66), but there was no association for UI (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76–1.19) or SCD (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80–1.38). Higher current BMI was associated with all PFD outcomes.Prevalence of PFD continues to increase up to 26 years following index birth, and differences were observed according to delivery mode history. Exclusive CS was associated with less risk of UI, FI and any prolapse symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author's response to an article "Twelve-Year Follow-Up of Conservative Management of Postnatal Urinary and Faecal Incontinence and Prolapsed Outcomes: Randomised Controlled Trial," that was published in previous issue is presented.

Background: Stress urinary incontinence is common in men after prostate surgery and can be difficult to improve. Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter is the most common surgical procedure for persistent stress urinary incontinence, but it requires specialist surgical skills, and revisions may be necessary. In addition, the sphincter is relatively expensive and its operation requires adequate patient dexterity. New surgical approaches include the male synthetic sling, which is emerging as a possible alternative. However, robust comparable data, derived from randomised controlled trials, on the relative safety and efficacy of the male synthetic sling and the artificial urinary sphincter are lacking., Objective: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the male synthetic sling with those of the artificial urinary sphincter surgery in men with persistent stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery., Design: This was a multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with a parallel non-randomised cohort and embedded qualitative component. Randomised controlled trial allocation was carried out by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1), minimised on previous prostate surgery (radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate), radiotherapy (or not, in relation to prostate surgery) and centre. Surgeons and participants were not blind to the treatment received. Non-randomised cohort allocation was participant and/or surgeon preference., Setting: The trial was set in 28 UK urological centres in the NHS., Participants: Participants were men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery for whom surgery was deemed appropriate. Exclusion criteria included previous sling or artificial urinary sphincter surgery, unresolved bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture after prostate surgery, and an inability to give informed consent or complete trial documentation., Interventions: We compared male synthetic sling with artificial urinary sphincter., Main Outcome Measures: The clinical primary outcome measure was men's reports of continence (assessed from questions 3 and 4 of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form) at 12 months post randomisation (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%). The primary economic outcome was cost-effectiveness (assessed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months post randomisation)., Results: In total, 380 men were included in the randomised controlled trial ( n  = 190 in each group), and 99 out of 100 men were included in the non-randomised cohort. In terms of continence, the male sling was non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter (intention-to-treat estimated absolute risk difference -0.034, 95% confidence interval -0.117 to 0.048; non-inferiority p  = 0.003), indicating a lower success rate in those randomised to receive a sling, but with a confidence interval excluding the non-inferiority margin of -15%. In both groups, treatment resulted in a reduction in incontinence symptoms (as measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form). Between baseline and 12 months' follow-up, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form score fell from 16.1 to 8.7 in the male sling group and from 16.4 to 7.5 in the artificial urinary sphincter group (mean difference for the time point at 12 months 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 2.49; p  = 0.032). The number of serious adverse events was small (male sling group, n  = 8; artificial urinary sphincter group, n  = 15; one man in the artificial urinary sphincter group experienced three serious adverse events). Quality-of-life scores improved and satisfaction was high in both groups. Secondary outcomes that showed statistically significant differences favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. Outcomes of the non-randomised cohort were similar. The male sling cost less than the artificial sphincter but was associated with a smaller quality-adjusted life-year gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for male slings compared with an artificial urinary sphincter suggests that there is a cost saving of £425,870 for each quality-adjusted life-year lost. The probability that slings would be cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year was 99%., Limitations: Follow-up beyond 24 months is not available. More specific surgical/device-related pain outcomes were not included., Conclusions: Continence rates improved from baseline, with the male sling non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter. Symptoms and quality of life significantly improved in both groups. Men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling., Future Work: Participant reports of any further surgery, satisfaction and quality of life at 5-year follow-up will inform longer-term outcomes. Administration of an additional pain questionnaire would provide further information on pain levels after both surgeries., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN49212975., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common after radical prostatectomy and likely to persist despite conservative treatment. The sling is an emerging operation for persistent SUI, but randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparison with the established artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is lacking., Objective: To compare the outcomes of surgery in men with bothersome urodynamic SUI after prostate surgery., Design, Setting, and Participants: A noninferiority RCT was conducted among men with bothersome urodynamic SUI from 27 UK centres. Blinding was not possible due the surgeries., Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the male transobturator sling (n = 190) or the AUS (n = 190) group., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary outcome was patient-reported SUI 12 mo after randomisation, collected from postal questionnaire using a composite outcome from two items in validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF). Noninferiority margin was 15%, thought to be of acceptable lower effectiveness, in return for reduced adverse events (AEs) and easier operation, for the sling. Secondary outcomes were operative and postoperative details, patient-reported measures, and AEs, up to 12 mo after surgery., Results and Limitations: A total of 380 participants were included. At 12 mo after randomisation, incontinence rates were 134/154 (87.0%) for male sling versus 133/158 (84.2%) for AUS (difference 3.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} -11.6 to 4.6], p NI  = 0.003), showing noninferiority. Incontinence symptoms (ICIQ-UI SF) reduced from scores of 16.1 and 16.4 at baseline to 8.7 and 7.5 for male sling and AUS, respectively (mean difference 1.4 [95% CI 0.2-2.6], p =  0.02). Serious AEs (SAEs) were few: n = 6 and n = 13 for male sling and AUS (one man had three SAEs), respectively. Quality of life scores improved, and satisfaction was high in both groups. All other secondary outcomes that show statistically significant differences favour the AUS., Conclusions: Using a strict definition, urinary incontinence rates remained high, with no evidence of difference between male sling and AUS. Symptoms and quality of life improved significantly in both groups, and men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses were in favour of AUS., Patient Summary: Urinary incontinence after prostatectomy has considerable effect on men's quality of life. MASTER shows that if surgery is needed, both surgical options result in fewer symptoms and high satisfaction, despite most men not being completely dry. However, most other results indicate that men having an artificial urinary sphincter have better outcomes than those who have a sling., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Urinary incontinence affects one in three women worldwide. Pelvic floor muscle training is an effective treatment. Electromyography biofeedback (providing visual or auditory feedback of internal muscle movement) is an adjunct that may improve outcomes., Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training (biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training) compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training for treating female stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence., Design: A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training, with a mixed-methods process evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative case study. Group allocation was by web-based application, with minimisation by urinary incontinence type, centre, age and baseline urinary incontinence severity. Participants, therapy providers and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Six-month pelvic floor muscle assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor., Setting: This trial was set in UK community and outpatient care settings., Participants: Women aged ≥ 18 years, with new stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. The following women were excluded: those with urgency urinary incontinence alone, those who had received formal instruction in pelvic floor muscle training in the previous year, those unable to contract their pelvic floor muscles, those pregnant or < 6 months postnatal, those with prolapse greater than stage II, those currently having treatment for pelvic cancer, those with cognitive impairment affecting capacity to give informed consent, those with neurological disease, those with a known nickel allergy or sensitivity and those currently participating in other research relating to their urinary incontinence., Interventions: Both groups were offered six appointments over 16 weeks to receive biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training or basic pelvic floor muscle training. Home biofeedback units were provided to the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group. Behaviour change techniques were built in to both interventions., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was urinary incontinence severity at 24 months (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score, range 0-21, with a higher score indicating greater severity). The secondary outcomes were urinary incontinence cure/improvement, other urinary and pelvic floor symptoms, urinary incontinence-specific quality of life, self-efficacy for pelvic floor muscle training, global impression of improvement in urinary incontinence, adherence to the exercise, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment and pelvic floor muscle function. The primary health economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year gained at 24 months., Results: A total of 300 participants were randomised per group. The primary analysis included 225 and 235 participants (biofeedback and basic pelvic floor muscle training, respectively). The mean 24-month International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score was 8.2 (standard deviation 5.1) for biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and 8.5 (standard deviation 4.9) for basic pelvic floor muscle training (adjusted mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75; p  = 0.84). A total of 48 participants had a non-serious adverse event (34 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 14 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), of whom 23 (21 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 2 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group) had an event related/possibly related to the interventions. In addition, there were eight serious adverse events (six in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and two in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), all unrelated to the interventions. At 24 months, biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training was not significantly more expensive than basic pelvic floor muscle training, but neither was it associated with significantly more quality-adjusted life-years. The probability that biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training would be cost-effective was 48% at a £20,000 willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The process evaluation confirmed that the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group received an intensified intervention and both groups received basic pelvic floor muscle training core components. Women were positive about both interventions, adherence to both interventions was similar and both interventions were facilitated by desire to improve their urinary incontinence and hindered by lack of time., Limitations: Women unable to contract their muscles were excluded, as biofeedback is recommended for these women., Conclusions: There was no evidence of a difference between biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and basic pelvic floor muscle training., Future Work: Research should investigate other ways to intensify pelvic floor muscle training to improve continence outcomes., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN57746448., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone for stress or mixed urinary incontinence in women., Design: Parallel group randomised controlled trial., Setting: 23 community and secondary care centres providing continence care in Scotland and England., Participants: 600 women aged 18 and older, newly presenting with stress or mixed urinary incontinence between February 2014 and July 2016: 300 were randomised to PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and 300 to PFMT alone., Interventions: Participants in both groups were offered six appointments with a continence therapist over 16 weeks. Participants in the biofeedback PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme, incorporating electromyographic biofeedback during clinic appointments and at home. The PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme. PFMT programmes were progressed over the appointments., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported severity of urinary incontinence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF), range 0 to 21, higher scores indicating greater severity) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were cure or improvement, other pelvic floor symptoms, condition specific quality of life, women's perception of improvement, pelvic floor muscle function, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment, PFMT self-efficacy, adherence, intervention costs, and quality adjusted life years., Results: Mean ICIQ-UI SF scores at 24 months were 8.2 (SD 5.1, n=225) in the biofeedback PFMT group and 8.5 (SD 4.9, n=235) in the PFMT group (mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75, P=0.84). Biofeedback PFMT had similar costs (mean difference £121 ($154; €133), -£409 to £651, P=0.64) and quality adjusted life years (-0.04, -0.12 to 0.04, P=0.28) to PFMT. 48 participants reported an adverse event: for 23 this was related or possibly related to the interventions., Conclusions: At 24 months no evidence was found of any important difference in severity of urinary incontinence between PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and PFMT alone groups. Routine use of electromyographic biofeedback with PFMT should not be recommended. Other ways of maximising the effects of PFMT should be investigated., Trial Registration: ISRCTN57756448., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. All authors declare grant funding for the trial from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Health Technology Assessment programme. In addition, outside the submitted work WA reports: personal fees from UCB Pharma, Pfizer, Bard, Boston Scientific, Neomedic, Johnson and Johnson, SEP Pharma/Contura, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, London Medical Education Academy, Central Legal Office NHS Scotland, Oaklaw Consultancy, various law firms acting on behalf of mesh manufacturers, patient claimants, and defendant clinicians; grants from Olympus, NIHR, University of Stirling, University of Aberdeen; grants and non-financial support from Astellas Pharmaceuticals; personal fees and non-financial support from Chief Scientist Office, NHS Research Scotland, and NHS Ayrshire and Arran. KG reports personal fees and non-financial support from Contura, outside the submitted work. MAF reports outside the submitted work: being a speaker, consultant and/or surgical trainer for a number of industrial companies (Astellas, Ethicon, Bard, Pfizer, AMS, Coloplast, and others); receiving travel expenses and received personal honorariums and sponsorship towards attending scientific conferences and educational meetings; research grant from Coloplast; sponsorship for trainees attending or presenting at pharmaceutical sponsored educational/ leadership workshops and scientific conferences; being previous chairman of the Scottish Pelvic Floor Network, which received sponsorship by various industrial companies. JN reports outside the submitted work membership of the following NIHR boards: Commissioning Priority Review Decision-making committee (2015); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board (2010-2016); HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (Expression of Interest) (2014); HTA Funding Boards Policy Group (2016-2019); HTA General Board (2016-2019); HTA Post-Board funding teleconference (2016-2019); NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee (2018-present); NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board (2014-2019); Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel (2017)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare standard (native tissue) repair with synthetic mesh inlays or mesh kits., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: Thirty-three UK hospitals., Population: Women having surgery for recurrent prolapse., Methods: Women recruited using remote randomisation., Main Outcome Measures: Prolapse symptoms, condition-specific quality-of-life and serious adverse effects., Results: A Mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 1 year was similar for each comparison (standard 6.6 versus mesh inlay 6.1, mean difference [MD] -0.41, 95% CI -2.92 to 2.11: standard 6.6 versus mesh kit 5.9, MD -1.21 , 95% CI -4.13 to 1.72) but the confidence intervals did not exclude a minimally important clinical difference. There was no evidence of difference in any other outcome measure at 1 or 2 years. Serious adverse events, excluding mesh exposure, were similar at 1 year (standard 7/55 [13%] versus mesh inlay 5/52 [10%], risk ratio [RR] 1.05 [0.66-1.68]: standard 3/25 [12%] versus mesh kit 3/46 [7%], RR 0.49 [0.11-2.16]). Cumulative mesh exposure rates over 2 years were 7/52 (13%) in the mesh inlay arm, of whom four women required surgical revision; and 4/46 in the mesh kit arm (9%), of whom two required surgical revision., Conclusions: We did not find evidence of a difference in terms of prolapse symptoms from the use of mesh inlays or mesh kits in women undergoing repeat prolapse surgery. Although the sample size was too small to be conclusive, the results provide a substantive contribution to future meta-analysis., Tweetable Abstract: There is not enough evidence to support use of synthetic mesh inlay or mesh kits for repeat prolapse surgery., (© 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods., Objective: To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Design: Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon., Setting: UK hospitals., Participants: Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery., Interventions: Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year)., Results: Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041)., Conclusions: Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach., Future Work: Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Robert Freeman reports speaker fees [from Bard Medical (Covington, GA, USA), Astellas Pharma Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA)] and grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. John Norrie reports membership of the following NIHR boards: the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decision-making Committee, HTA Commissioning Board, HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (Expression of Interest), HTA Funding Boards Policy Group, HTA General Board and HTA Post-board Funding Teleconference; the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee; the NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board; and the Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel.

Introduction: Accidental urine leakage is a distressing problem that affects around one in three women. The main types of urinary incontinence (UI) are stress, urgency and mixed, with stress being most common. Current UK guidelines recommend that women with UI are offered at least 3 months of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). There is evidence that PFMT is effective in treating UI, however it is not clear how intensively women have to exercise to give the maximum sustained improvement in symptoms, and how we enable women to achieve this. Biofeedback is an adjunct to PFMT that may help women exercise more intensively for longer, and thus may improve continence outcomes when compared with PFMT alone. A Cochrane review was inconclusive about the benefit of biofeedback, indicating the need for further evidence., Methods and Analysis: This multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT for women with stress UI or mixed UI. The primary outcome is UI severity at 24 months after randomisation. The primary economic outcome measure is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months. Six hundred women from UK community, outpatient and primary care settings will be randomised and followed up via questionnaires, diaries and pelvic floor assessment. All participants are offered six PFMT appointments over 16 weeks. The use of clinic and home biofeedback is added to PFMT for participants in the biofeedback group. Group allocation could not be masked from participants and healthcare staff. An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the mean difference between the trial groups at 24 months using a general linear mixed model adjusting for minimisation covariates and other important prognostic covariates, including the baseline score., Ethics and Dissemination: Approval granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants by the local research team. Serious adverse events will be reported to the data monitoring and ethics committee, the ethics committee and trial centres as required. A Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist and figure are available for this protocol. The results will be published in international journals and included in the relevant Cochrane review., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN57746448; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a frequent adverse effect for men undergoing prostate surgery. A large proportion (around 8% after radical prostatectomy and 2% after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)) are left with severe disabling incontinence which adversely effects their quality of life and many are reliant on containment measures such as pads (27% and 6% respectively). Surgery is currently the only option for active management of the problem. The overwhelming majority of surgeries for persistent bothersome SUI involve artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. However, this is expensive, and necessitates manipulation of a pump to enable voiding. More recently, an alternative to AUS has been developed - a synthetic sling for men which elevates the urethra, thus treating SUI. This is thought, by some, to be less invasive, more acceptable and less expensive than AUS but clear evidence for this is lacking. The MASTER trial aims to determine whether the male synthetic sling is non-inferior to implantation of the AUS for men who have SUI after prostate surgery (for cancer or benign disease), judged primarily on clinical effectiveness but also considering relative harms and cost-effectiveness., Methods/design: Men with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) after prostate surgery, for whom surgery is judged appropriate, are the target population. We aim to recruit men from secondary care urological centres in the UK NHS who carry out surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Outcomes will be assessed by participant-completed questionnaires and 3-day urinary bladder diaries at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The 24-h urinary pad test will be used at baseline as an objective assessment of urine loss. Clinical data will be completed at the time of surgery to provide details of the operative procedures, complications and resource use in hospital. At 12 months, men will also have a clinical review to evaluate the results of surgery (including another 24-h pad test) and to identify problems or need for further treatment., Discussion: A robust examination of the comparative effectiveness of the male synthetic sling will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether or not it should be adopted widely in the NHS., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry: Number ISRCTN49212975 . Registered on 22 July 2013. First patient randomised on 29 January 2014.

Background: Pelvic floor muscle training can reduce prolapse severity and symptoms in women seeking treatment. We aimed to assess whether this intervention could also be effective in secondary prevention of prolapse and the need for future treatment., Methods: We did this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at three centres in New Zealand and the UK. Women from a longitudinal study of pelvic floor function after childbirth were potentially eligible for inclusion. Women of any age who had stage 1-3 prolapse, but had not sought treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1), via remote computer allocation, to receive either one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training (five physiotherapy appointments over 16 weeks, and annual review) plus Pilates-based pelvic floor muscle training classes and a DVD for home use (intervention group), or a prolapse lifestyle advice leaflet (control group). Randomisation was minimised by centre, parity (three or less vs more than three deliveries), prolapse stage (above the hymen vs at or beyond the hymen), and delivery method (any vaginal vs all caesarean sections). Women and intervention physiotherapists could not be masked to group allocation, but allocation was masked from data entry researchers and from the trial statistician until after database lock. The primary outcome was self-reported prolapse symptoms (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) at 2 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01171846., Findings: Between Dec 21, 2008, and Feb 24, 2010, in New Zealand, and Oct 27, 2010, and Sept 5, 2011, in the UK, we randomly assigned 414 women to the intervention group (n=207) or the control group (n=207). One participant in each group was excluded after randomisation, leaving 412 women for analysis. At baseline, 399 (97%) women had prolapse above or at the level of the hymen. The mean POP-SS score at 2 years was 3·2 (SD 3·4) in the intervention group versus 4·2 (SD 4·4) in the control group (adjusted mean difference -1·01, 95% CI -1·70 to -0·33; p=0·004). The mean symptom score stayed similar across time points in the control group, but decreased in the intervention group. Three adverse events were reported, all of which were in the intervention group (one women had a fall, one woman had a pain in her tail bone, and one woman had chest pain and shortness of breath)., Interpretation: Our study shows that pelvic floor muscle training leads to a small, but probably important, reduction in prolapse symptoms. This finding will be important for women and caregivers considering preventive strategies., Funding: Wellbeing of Women charity, the New Zealand Continence Association, and the Dean's Bequest Fund of Dunedin School of Medicine., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of mesh in prolapse surgery is controversial, leading to a number of enquiries into its safety and efficacy., Objective: To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness., Design: Two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort (CC) study. Allocation was by a remote web-based randomisation system in a 1 :1 : 1 ratio (Primary trial) or 1 : 1 : 2 ratio (Secondary trial), and was minimised on age, type of prolapse repair planned, need for a concomitant continence procedure, need for a concomitant upper vaginal prolapse procedure and surgeon. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to randomisation; participants were unblinded if they requested the information. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedure., Setting: Thirty-five UK hospitals., Participants: Primary study : 2474 women in the analysis (including 1348 randomised) having primary anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. Secondary study : 398 in the analysis (including 154 randomised) having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. CC3 : 215 women having either uterine or vault prolapse repair., Interventions: Anterior or posterior repair alone, or with mesh inlay, biological graft or mesh kit., Main Outcome Measures: Prolapse symptoms [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)]; prolapse-specific QoL; cost-effectiveness [incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)]., Results: Primary trials : adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, mean POP-SS was similar for each comparison {standard 5.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.5] vs. mesh 5.5 (SD 5.1), mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.71; standard 5.5 (SD 5.6) vs. graft 5.6 (SD 5.6), MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.63}. Serious non-mesh adverse effects rates were similar between the groups in year 1 [standard 7.2% vs. mesh 7.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.72; standard 6.3% vs. graft 9.8%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59]. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any other outcome measure. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 2 of 430 (0.5%) for standard repair (trial 1), 46 of 435 (10.6%) for mesh inlay and 2 of 368 (0.5%) for biological graft. The CC findings were comparable. Incremental costs were £363 (95% CI -£32 to £758) and £565 (95% CI £180 to £950) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. Incremental QALYs were 0.071 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.145) and 0.039 (95% CI -0.041 to 0.120) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. A Markov decision model extrapolating trial results over 5 years showed standard repair had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness, but results were surrounded by considerable uncertainty. Secondary trials : there were no statistically significant differences between the randomised groups in any outcome measure, but the sample size was too small to be conclusive. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 7 of 52 (13.5%) for mesh inlay and 4 of 46 (8.7%) for mesh kit, with no mesh exposures for standard repair., Conclusions: In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results., Limitations: Women in the Primary trials included some with a previous repair in another compartment. Follow-up is vital to identify any long-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects., Future Work: Long-term follow-up to at least 6 years after surgery is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness., Triai Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60695184., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 95. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: One in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events., Methods/design: VUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation., Discussion: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013.

Objective: To investigate the extent of persistent urinary incontinence (UI) 12 years after birth, and association with delivery-mode history and other factors., Design: Twelve-year longitudinal cohort study., Setting: Maternity units in Aberdeen, Birmingham, and Dunedin., Population: Women who returned questionnaires 3 months and 12 years after index birth., Methods: Data on all births over a period of 12 months were obtained from the units and then women were contacted by post., Main Outcome Measure: Persistent UI reported at 12 years, with one or more previous contact., Results: Of 7879 women recruited at 3 months, 3763 (48%) responded at 12 years, with 2944 also having responded at 6 years; non-responders had similar obstetric characteristics. The prevalence of persistent UI was 37.9% (1429/3763). Among those who had reported UI at 3 months, 76.4% reported it at 12 years. Women with persistent UI had lower SF12 quality of life scores. Compared with having only spontaneous vaginal deliveries (SVDs), women who delivered exclusively by caesarean section were less likely to have persistent UI (odds ratio, OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.54). This was not the case in women who had a combination of caesarean section and SVD births (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30). Older age at first birth, greater parity, and overweight/obesity were associated with persistent UI. Of 54 index primiparae with UI before pregnancy, 46 (85.2%) had persistent UI., Conclusions: This study, demonstrating that UI persists to 12 years in about three-quarters of women, and that risk was only reduced with caesarean section if women had no other delivery mode, has practice implications., Tweetable Abstract: A longitudinal study of 3763 women showed a prevalence of persistent UI 12 years after birth of 37.9%., (© 2015 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)