Transdermal scopolamine and urinary retention following urogynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Both urogynecologic surgeries and transdermal scopolamine (TDS) patches are independently associated with postoperative urinary retention (POUR). It is unclear if the risk of POUR increases when these interventions are used in combination. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesize current evidence to optimize clinical management and outcomes for patients undergoing urogynecologic procedures.

This systematic review was conducted in concordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched. Publications were filtered by inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria required: (1) preoperative or perioperative application of TDS, (2) surgery indicated for stress urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse, (3) results given for postoperative voiding trials, and (4) were available in English. Exclusion criteria included: (1) oral or parenteral formulations of scopolamine, (2) administration of alternative preoperative antiemetics, and (3) use of combination antiemetic therapy. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist. Publication bias was evaluated via the ROBINS-I assessment tool, and Egger regression and Begg and Mazumumdar rank correlation tests. A meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-Essentials Excel Workbook.

Four publications were identified which complied with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies comprised 752 patients (237 experimental group, 515 control group). All were retrospective cohort studies conducted via chart review in America. Meta-analysis revealed a risk ratio (RR) of 2.35 with a confidence interval (CI) of 0.61 to 9.07, indicating a positive association between TDS and POUR, but without statistical significance.

Current evidence suggests that TDS application may be associated with increased risk of POUR following urogynecologic procedures. While research on this topic is greatly limited, this systematic review and meta-analysis highlights that alternative antiemetic therapy may be necessary for patients undergoing such interventions in effort to limit the risk of POUR.