Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

PRISMA study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 1 Number of women with urinary incontinence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 1 Number of women with urinary incontinence.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 2 Number of women with no improvement.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 2 Number of women with no improvement.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 3 Objectve measurement of incontinence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 3 Objectve measurement of incontinence.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 4 Condition‐specific health measures.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 4 Condition‐specific health measures.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 5 Duration of operation (in minutes).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 5 Duration of operation (in minutes).

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 6 Operative blood loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 6 Operative blood loss.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 7 Length of in‐patient stay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 7 Length of in‐patient stay.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 8 Major vascular or visceral injury.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 8 Major vascular or visceral injury.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 9 Vaginal wall perforation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 9 Vaginal wall perforation.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 10 Bladder or urethral perforation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.10

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 10 Bladder or urethral perforation.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 11 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.11

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 11 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 12 Infection related to use of synthetic mesh.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.12

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 12 Infection related to use of synthetic mesh.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 13 Vaginal mesh exposure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.13

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 13 Vaginal mesh exposure.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 14 Mesh extrusion into the bladder or urethra.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.14

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 14 Mesh extrusion into the bladder or urethra.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 15 Long‐term pain or discomfort.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.15

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 15 Long‐term pain or discomfort.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 16 Dyspareunia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.16

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 16 Dyspareunia.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 17 De novo urgency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.17

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 17 De novo urgency.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 18 New‐onset detrusor overactivity.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.18

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 18 New‐onset detrusor overactivity.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 19 Repeat stress incontinence surgery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.19

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 19 Repeat stress incontinence surgery.

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 20 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.20

Comparison 6 Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings, Outcome 20 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 1 Number of women with urinary incontinence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 1 Number of women with urinary incontinence.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 2 Number of women with no improvement.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 2 Number of women with no improvement.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 3 Objective measurement of incontinence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 3 Objective measurement of incontinence.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 4 Incontinence episodes.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 4 Incontinence episodes.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 5 Pad test (weights).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 5 Pad test (weights).

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 6 Condition‐specific health measures.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 6 Condition‐specific health measures.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 7 Duration of operation (minutes).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 7 Duration of operation (minutes).

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 8 Operative blood loss (mL).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 8 Operative blood loss (mL).

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 9 Length of in‐patient stay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 9 Length of in‐patient stay.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 10 Major vascular or visceral injury.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.10

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 10 Major vascular or visceral injury.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 11 Bladder or urethral perforation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.11

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 11 Bladder or urethral perforation.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 12 Vaginal wall perforation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.12

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 12 Vaginal wall perforation.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 13 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.13

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 13 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 14 Infection related to use of synthetic mesh.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.14

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 14 Infection related to use of synthetic mesh.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 15 Vaginal mesh exposure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.15

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 15 Vaginal mesh exposure.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 16 Mesh extrusion into the bladder or urethra.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.16

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 16 Mesh extrusion into the bladder or urethra.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 17 Postoperative pain or discomfort.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.17

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 17 Postoperative pain or discomfort.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 18 Long‐term pain or discomfort.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.18

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 18 Long‐term pain or discomfort.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 19 De novo urgency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.19

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 19 De novo urgency.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 20 Repeat stress incontinence surgery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.20

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 20 Repeat stress incontinence surgery.

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 21 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.21

Comparison 7 Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings, Outcome 21 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 1 Number of women with urinary incontinence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 1 Number of women with urinary incontinence.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 2 Number of women with no improvement.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 2 Number of women with no improvement.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 3 Objectve measurement of incontinence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 3 Objectve measurement of incontinence.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 4 Condition‐specific health measures.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 4 Condition‐specific health measures.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 5 Duration of operation (minutes).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 5 Duration of operation (minutes).

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 6 Operative blood loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 6 Operative blood loss.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 7 Major vascular or visceral injury.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 7 Major vascular or visceral injury.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 8 Bladder or urethral perforation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.8

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 8 Bladder or urethral perforation.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 9 Vaginal wall perforation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.9

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 9 Vaginal wall perforation.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 10 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.10

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 10 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 11 Vaginal mesh exposure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.11

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 11 Vaginal mesh exposure.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 12 Postoperative pain or discomfort.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.12

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 12 Postoperative pain or discomfort.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 13 De novo urgency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.13

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 13 De novo urgency.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 14 Repeat stress incontinence surgery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.14

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 14 Repeat stress incontinence surgery.

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 15 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.15

Comparison 8 One single‐incision sling versus another, Outcome 15 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications.

Comparison 6. Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of women with urinary incontinence Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Bottom‐up approach

5

573

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.08 [1.04, 4.14]

2 Number of women with no improvement Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Bottom‐up approach

3

246

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.55, 3.46]

3 Objectve measurement of incontinence Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Bottom‐up approach

2

188

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.44 [2.06, 9.56]

4 Condition‐specific health measures Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Duration of operation (in minutes) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Bottom‐up approach

3

386

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐17.33 [‐32.09, ‐2.57]

6 Operative blood loss Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Length of in‐patient stay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Major vascular or visceral injury Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Vaginal wall perforation Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 Bottom‐up approach

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Bladder or urethral perforation Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Bottom‐up approach

4

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.15, 1.38]

11 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Bottom‐up approach

5

578

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.38, 1.99]

12 Infection related to use of synthetic mesh Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [0.22, 17.89]

13 Vaginal mesh exposure Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Bottom‐up approach

2

333

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.23, 8.16]

14 Mesh extrusion into the bladder or urethra Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Bottom‐up approach

3

445

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.19, 3.01]

15 Long‐term pain or discomfort Show forest plot

2

329

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15.1 Bottom‐up approach

2

329

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Dyspareunia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.9 [0.32, 26.30]

17 De novo urgency Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 Bottom‐up approach

3

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.39 [1.25, 4.56]

18 New‐onset detrusor overactivity Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 Bottom‐up approach

1

70

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.13, 5.98]

19 Repeat stress incontinence surgery Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.1 Bottom‐up approach

2

333

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.34 [0.79, 6.92]

20 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 Bottom‐up approach

2

333

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.29, 4.74]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Single‐incision sling versus retropubic minimally invasive slings
Comparison 7. Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of women with urinary incontinence Show forest plot

17

1655

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.91 [1.53, 2.39]

1.1 Inside‐out TVTO

10

1053

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.55 [1.94, 3.36]

1.2 Outside‐in TOT

7

602

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.60, 1.39]

2 Number of women with no improvement Show forest plot

5

642

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.29 [1.29, 4.06]

2.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

4

437

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.80 [2.00, 11.55]

2.2 Outside‐in TOT

1

205

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.32, 1.82]

3 Objective measurement of incontinence Show forest plot

12

1198

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.88 [1.49, 2.36]

3.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

7

804

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.91 [2.00, 4.25]

3.2 Outside‐in TOT

5

394

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.90, 1.55]

4 Incontinence episodes Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Outside‐in TOT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Pad test (weights) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Outside‐in TOT

2

268

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.64 [‐6.24, 2.96]

6 Condition‐specific health measures Show forest plot

3

334

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [‐0.06, 0.38]

6.1 Inside‐out TVTO

2

290

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.17, 0.30]

6.2 Outside‐in TOT (UDI 6)

1

44

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.25, 1.56]

7 Duration of operation (minutes) Show forest plot

9

1176

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.17 [‐1.60, ‐0.75]

7.1 Inside‐out TVTO

6

759

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.06 [‐1.50, ‐0.61]

7.2 Outside‐in TOT

3

417

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.14 [‐3.43, ‐0.84]

8 Operative blood loss (mL) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Inside‐out TVTO

2

320

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

18.79 [3.70, 33.88]

9 Length of in‐patient stay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Inside‐out TVTO

1

188

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.33, 0.17]

10 Major vascular or visceral injury Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

3

460

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.28, 6.89]

11 Bladder or urethral perforation Show forest plot

9

961

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.32, 5.02]

11.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

5

666

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.45 [0.40, 15.09]

11.2 Outside‐in TOT

4

295

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.01, 4.99]

12 Vaginal wall perforation Show forest plot

6

788

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.41, 6.81]

12.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

5

715

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.41, 6.81]

12.2 Outside‐in TOT

1

73

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation Show forest plot

15

1477

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.28, 1.15]

13.1 Inside‐out TVTO

10

996

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.34, 1.52]

13.2 Outside‐in TOT

5

481

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.08, 3.44]

14 Infection related to use of synthetic mesh Show forest plot

2

412

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.09, 2.69]

14.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

1

188

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.88 [0.12, 69.72]

14.2 Outside‐in TOT

1

224

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.01, 2.73]

15 Vaginal mesh exposure Show forest plot

9

819

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.59 [1.21, 5.56]

15.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

5

562

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.75 [1.42, 9.86]

15.2 Outside‐in TOT

4

257

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.27, 4.28]

16 Mesh extrusion into the bladder or urethra Show forest plot

2

146

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

17.79 [1.06, 298.88]

16.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

1

86

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

17.79 [1.06, 298.88]

16.2 Outside‐in TOT

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Postoperative pain or discomfort Show forest plot

9

1102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.26 [0.19, 0.37]

17.1 Inside‐out TVTO

8

806

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.20, 0.43]

17.2 Outside‐in TOT

2

296

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.09, 0.40]

18 Long‐term pain or discomfort Show forest plot

5

351

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.04, 0.54]

18.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

3

235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.03, 1.07]

18.2 Outside‐in TOT

2

116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.02, 0.82]

19 De novo urgency Show forest plot

10

927

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.41 [0.98, 2.03]

19.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

8

835

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.31 [0.90, 1.90]

19.2 Outside‐in TOT

2

92

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.15 [0.68, 39.23]

20 Repeat stress incontinence surgery Show forest plot

6

764

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.09 [1.48, 6.49]

20.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

3

420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.86 [2.00, 17.21]

20.2 Outside‐in TOT

3

344

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.31, 3.18]

21 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications Show forest plot

8

989

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.03 [1.09, 3.78]

21.1 Inside‐out TVT‐O

5

645

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.15 [1.04, 4.43]

21.2 Outside‐in TOT

3

344

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.75 [0.52, 5.85]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Single‐incision sling versus obturator minimally invasive slings
Comparison 8. One single‐incision sling versus another

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of women with urinary incontinence Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 TVT‐SECUR versus MiniArc

2

170

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.95, 1.29]

1.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

3

496

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.78, 1.40]

1.3 MiniArc versus Ajust

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.91 [0.63, 13.32]

2 Number of women with no improvement Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

2

170

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.25 [0.84, 12.66]

2.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

1

129

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.33, 1.63]

2.3 MiniArc versus Ajust

1

61

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.21 [0.21, 23.08]

3 Objectve measurement of incontinence Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 MiniArc versus Ajust

1

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.91 [0.63, 13.32]

3.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

3

496

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.56, 1.07]

4 Condition‐specific health measures Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 MiniArc versus AJUST

1

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐1.58, 1.32]

4.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

414

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐2.15, 1.55]

5 Duration of operation (minutes) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

2

190

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.70 [‐4.11, 7.51]

5.2 Ajust versus MiniArc

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐4.67, 7.07]

6 Operative blood loss Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

459

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Ajust versus MiniArc

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐10.04, 7.64]

6.3 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.30 [‐5.53, 14.13]

7 Major vascular or visceral injury Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

459

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.03, 2.19]

8 Bladder or urethral perforation Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

459

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.91]

8.2 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

1

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.18 [0.21, 85.11]

9 Vaginal wall perforation Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 TVT‐S versus MiniArc

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Urinary retention and need for catheterisation Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

3

250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.05 [0.47, 8.95]

10.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

1

330

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.11, 3.94]

10.3 Ajust versus MiniArc

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.0 [0.25, 100.97]

11 Vaginal mesh exposure Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

414

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.22, 2.80]

12 Postoperative pain or discomfort Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 Ajust versus MiniArc

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 De novo urgency Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 TVT‐Secur versus MiniArc

3

250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.24, 2.02]

13.2 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

367

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.53, 2.25]

13.3 Ajust versus MiniArc

1

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.26, 8.50]

14 Repeat stress incontinence surgery Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

414

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.54, 2.51]

15 Need for any other additional or new surgical procedure to treat complications Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 U‐type versus H‐type TVT‐Secur

2

414

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.04, 1.61]

15.2 TVT‐Secur vs Mini‐Arc

1

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [0.16, 17.85]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. One single‐incision sling versus another