Urinary Incontinence

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

Among women with a positive preoperative prolapse-reduction stress test, the sling appeared to provide greater benefit at 3 months (29.6% vs 71.9% incontinence, adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34)

Effect: improvement; Positive stress test: 29.6% sling vs 71.9% sham, adjusted OR 0.13; CI: 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77

At 12 months, prophylactic midurethral sling placement during vaginal prolapse surgery resulted in a lower rate of urinary incontinence compared to sham incisions (27.3% vs 43.0%, adjusted OR 0.48, 95

Effect: improvement; 27.3% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR 0.48; CI: 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77