Data_Sheet_2_Impact of Radiation Therapy on Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PDF

BackgroundTo compare incontinence rates and complications in patients receiving artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) with or without radiotherapy (RT).MethodsPubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes of AUS between patients with and without RT. Search limits were from 1st January 2002 to 15th September 2021.ResultsEighteen studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant reduced odds of the absence of incontinence in the RT group (OR: 0.35 95% CI: 0.21, 0.59 I2 = 51% p 2 = 73% p = 0.07). There was increased risk of infections (OR: 2.51 95% CI: 1.00, 6.29 I2 = 46% p = 0.05) and erosions (OR: 2.00 95% CI: 1.15, 3.45 I2 = 21% p = 0.01) in the RT group, but the difference was significant only for erosions. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increased risk of explantation in patients with RT (OR: 3.00 95% CI: 1.16, 7.75 I2 = 68% p = 0.02) but there was no difference in the risk of urethral atrophy (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.47, 2.94 I2 = 46% p = 0.72) and mechanical failure (OR: 0.90 95% CI: 0.25, 3.27 I2 = 54% p = 0.87) between the two groups.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis of recent studies indicates that RT significantly reduces the odds of achieving complete continence after AUS placement. History of RT does not increase the risk urethral atrophy or mechanical failure in patients with AUS. However, the risk of revision surgery, erosions and explantations is significantly increased in patients with RT with a non-significant but increased tendency of infections.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: NCT02612389.</p

Table_1_Impact of Radiation Therapy on Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.DOCX

BackgroundTo compare incontinence rates and complications in patients receiving artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) with or without radiotherapy (RT).MethodsPubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes of AUS between patients with and without RT. Search limits were from 1st January 2002 to 15th September 2021.ResultsEighteen studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant reduced odds of the absence of incontinence in the RT group (OR: 0.35 95% CI: 0.21, 0.59 I2 = 51% p 2 = 73% p = 0.07). There was increased risk of infections (OR: 2.51 95% CI: 1.00, 6.29 I2 = 46% p = 0.05) and erosions (OR: 2.00 95% CI: 1.15, 3.45 I2 = 21% p = 0.01) in the RT group, but the difference was significant only for erosions. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increased risk of explantation in patients with RT (OR: 3.00 95% CI: 1.16, 7.75 I2 = 68% p = 0.02) but there was no difference in the risk of urethral atrophy (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.47, 2.94 I2 = 46% p = 0.72) and mechanical failure (OR: 0.90 95% CI: 0.25, 3.27 I2 = 54% p = 0.87) between the two groups.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis of recent studies indicates that RT significantly reduces the odds of achieving complete continence after AUS placement. History of RT does not increase the risk urethral atrophy or mechanical failure in patients with AUS. However, the risk of revision surgery, erosions and explantations is significantly increased in patients with RT with a non-significant but increased tendency of infections.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: NCT02612389.</p

Data_Sheet_3_Impact of Radiation Therapy on Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PDF

BackgroundTo compare incontinence rates and complications in patients receiving artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) with or without radiotherapy (RT).MethodsPubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes of AUS between patients with and without RT. Search limits were from 1st January 2002 to 15th September 2021.ResultsEighteen studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant reduced odds of the absence of incontinence in the RT group (OR: 0.35 95% CI: 0.21, 0.59 I2 = 51% p 2 = 73% p = 0.07). There was increased risk of infections (OR: 2.51 95% CI: 1.00, 6.29 I2 = 46% p = 0.05) and erosions (OR: 2.00 95% CI: 1.15, 3.45 I2 = 21% p = 0.01) in the RT group, but the difference was significant only for erosions. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increased risk of explantation in patients with RT (OR: 3.00 95% CI: 1.16, 7.75 I2 = 68% p = 0.02) but there was no difference in the risk of urethral atrophy (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.47, 2.94 I2 = 46% p = 0.72) and mechanical failure (OR: 0.90 95% CI: 0.25, 3.27 I2 = 54% p = 0.87) between the two groups.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis of recent studies indicates that RT significantly reduces the odds of achieving complete continence after AUS placement. History of RT does not increase the risk urethral atrophy or mechanical failure in patients with AUS. However, the risk of revision surgery, erosions and explantations is significantly increased in patients with RT with a non-significant but increased tendency of infections.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: NCT02612389.</p

Data_Sheet_1_Impact of Radiation Therapy on Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PDF

BackgroundTo compare incontinence rates and complications in patients receiving artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) with or without radiotherapy (RT).MethodsPubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes of AUS between patients with and without RT. Search limits were from 1st January 2002 to 15th September 2021.ResultsEighteen studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant reduced odds of the absence of incontinence in the RT group (OR: 0.35 95% CI: 0.21, 0.59 I2 = 51% p 2 = 73% p = 0.07). There was increased risk of infections (OR: 2.51 95% CI: 1.00, 6.29 I2 = 46% p = 0.05) and erosions (OR: 2.00 95% CI: 1.15, 3.45 I2 = 21% p = 0.01) in the RT group, but the difference was significant only for erosions. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increased risk of explantation in patients with RT (OR: 3.00 95% CI: 1.16, 7.75 I2 = 68% p = 0.02) but there was no difference in the risk of urethral atrophy (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.47, 2.94 I2 = 46% p = 0.72) and mechanical failure (OR: 0.90 95% CI: 0.25, 3.27 I2 = 54% p = 0.87) between the two groups.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis of recent studies indicates that RT significantly reduces the odds of achieving complete continence after AUS placement. History of RT does not increase the risk urethral atrophy or mechanical failure in patients with AUS. However, the risk of revision surgery, erosions and explantations is significantly increased in patients with RT with a non-significant but increased tendency of infections.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: NCT02612389.</p

Comparison of total dose of Gn.

<p>The total dose of Gn was significantly higher in the long protocol group than in the short protocol group for all age ranges (<i>P</i><0.05). As age increased, more gonadotropins were consumed (<i>P</i><0.05). * <i>P</i><0.05 versus the short protocol group.</p

Comparison of No. of high-quality embryos.

<p>The number of high-quality embryos in the long protocol group was significantly greater than that in the short protocol group for all age ranges (<i>P</i><0.05). This value significantly decreased with increasing age (<i>P</i><0.05). * <i>P</i><0.05 versus the short protocol group.</p

Comparison of clinical pregnancy rate.

<p>In the long protocol group, the clinical pregnancy rates of the four age ranges were 52.76%, 44.33%, 36.15% and 13.33%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in the short protocol group (33.33%, 24.58%, 22.49% and 8.72%, respectively; <i>P</i><0.05). As aged increased, the clinical pregnancy rate in the long protocol group significantly decreased (<i>P</i><0.05). * <i>P</i><0.05 versus the short protocol group.</p

Short versus Long Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogue Suppression Protocols in IVF/ICSI Cycles in Patients of Various Age Ranges

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To compare the two GnRH-a protocols (long GnRH-a protocol and short GnRH-a protocol) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles in patients of various age ranges.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A total of 5662 IVF-ET/ICSI cycles from 2010 to 2013 were retrospectively identified. The cycles were divided into two groups: a long protocol group and short protocol group. In each group, the patients were divided into four age ranges: <31 years, 31 to 35 years, 36 to 40 years, and >40 years. The duration of stimulation, total dose of Gn, implantation rate and pregnancy rate were compared.</p><p>Results</p><p>The total dose of Gn was significantly higher, and the duration of stimulation was significantly longer, in the long protocol group than in the short protocol group for all age ranges (<i>P</i><0.05). If the patients were of the same age range, the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and high-quality embryos in the long protocol group were all significantly greater than those in the short protocol group (<i>P</i><0.05). In the long protocol group, the clinical pregnancy rates of the four age ranges were 52.76%, 44.33%, 36.15% and 13.33%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in the short protocol group (33.33%, 24.58%, 22.49% and 8.72%, respectively; <i>P</i><0.05). The same trend was also found in the implantation rates of the four age ranges. As the age increased, the clinical pregnancy and implantation rates, as well as the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and high-quality embryos, of the long protocol group significantly decreased (<i>P</i><0.05).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Our study demonstrated that regardless of patient age, the long protocol was superior to the short protocol in terms of the number of retrieved oocytes, as well as the implantation and pregnancy rates.</p></div

Comparison of miscarriage rate.

<p>For all age ranges, there were no significant differences in miscarriage rates between the two groups. In the short protocol group in patients older than 40 years, the miscarriage rate was 52.94%, which was significantly higher than that of the other three age ranges (6.90%, 22.73% and 16.07%, respectively; <i>P</i><0.05).</p

Comparison of implantation rate.

<p>In the long protocol group, the implantation rates of the four age ranges were significantly higher than those in the short protocol group (P<0.05). As aged increased, the implantation rates of the long protocol group significantly decreased (P<0.05). * <i>P</i><0.05 versus the short protocol group.</p