Can incontinence be cured? A systematic review of cure rates

Background Incontinence constitutes a major health problem affecting millions of people worldwide. The present study aims to assess cure rates from treating urinary (UI) or fecal incontinence (FI) and the number of people who may remain dependent on containment strategies. Methods Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and PEDro were searched from January 2005 to June 2015. Supplementary searches included conference abstracts and trials registers (2013–2015). Included studies had patients ≥ 18 years with UI or FI, reported treatment cure or success rates, had ≥ 50 patients treated with any intervention recognized in international guideline algorithms, a follow-up ≥ 3 months, and were published from 2005 onwards. Title and abstract screening, full paper screening, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer where necessary. A narrative summary of included studies is presented. Results Most evidence was found for UI: Surgical interventions for stress UI showed a median cure rate of 82.3% (interquartile range (IQR), 72–89.5%); people with urgency UI were mostly treated using medications (median cure rate for antimuscarinics = 49%; IQR, 35.6–58%). Pelvic floor muscle training and bulking agents showed lower cure rates for UI. Sacral neuromodulation for FI had a median cure rate of 38.6% (IQR, 35.6–40.6%). Conclusions Many individuals were not cured and hence may continue to rely on containment. No studies were found assessing success of containment strategies. There was a lack of data in the disabled and in those with neurological diseases, in the elderly and those with cognitive impairment. Surgical interventions were effective for stress UI. Other interventions for UI and FI showed lower cure rates. Many individuals are likely to be reliant on containment strategies

Simulation of the mechanical interlocking capacity of a rough bone implant surface during healing

Background: When an implant is inserted in the bone the healing process starts to osseointegrate the implant by creating new bone that interlocks with the implant. Biomechanical interlocking capacity is commonly evaluated in in vivo experiments. It would be beneficial to find a numerical method to evaluate the interlocking capacity of different surface structures with bone. In the present study, the theoretical interlocking capacity of three different surfaces after different healing times was evaluated by the means of explicit finite element analysis. Methods: The surface topographies of the three surfaces were measured with interferometry and were used to construct a 3D bone-implant model. The implant was subjected to a displacement until failure of the bone-to-implant interface and the maximum force represents the interlocking capacity. Results: The simulated ratios (test/control) seem to agree with the in vivo ratios of Halldin et al. for longer healing times. However the absolute removal torque values are underestimated and do not reach the biomechanical performance found in the study by Halldin et al. which might be a result of unknown mechanical properties of the interface. Conclusion: Finite element analysis is a promising method that might be used prior to an in vivo study to compare the load bearing capacity of the bone-to-implant interface of two surface topographies at longer healing times

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences