Randomised comparison of Burch colposuspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse

Objective To compare the Burch colposuspension and the anterior colporrhaphy in women with both stress urinary incontinence and advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse (cystocele). Design Prospective randomised study. Setting Secondary referral centre, Urogynaecology Unit, San Gerardo Hospital, Monz...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2000-04, Vol.107 (4), p.544-551
Hauptverfasser: Colombo, Mario, Vitobello, Domenico, Proietti, Fabio, Milani, Rodolfo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective To compare the Burch colposuspension and the anterior colporrhaphy in women with both stress urinary incontinence and advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse (cystocele). Design Prospective randomised study. Setting Secondary referral centre, Urogynaecology Unit, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. Sample Seventy‐one women undergoing surgery for primary genuine stress incontinence and concurrent grade 2 or 3 cystocele (descending at or outside the vaginal introitus). Methods Full urodynamic investigation performed pre‐operatively and repeated six months after surgery. Clinical follow up continued for 8 to 17 years. Main outcome measures Subjective (patient history) and objective (negative stress test result) cure of stress incontinence. Assessment of cystocele recurrence. Results Thirty (86%) of the 35 evaluable women who had the Burch colposuspension and 17 (52%) of the 33 evaluable women who had the anterior colporrhaphy were subjectively cured (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.6 to 21.6; P= 0.005). Objective cure rates were 74% (26 of 35) and 42% (14 of 33), respectively (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 12.5; P= 0.02). A recurrent cystocele of grade 2 or 3 with or without prolapse at other vaginal sites was recorded in 34% (12 of 35) and 3% (1 of 33) of women, respectively (OR 16.7, 95% CI 2.0 to 368.1; P= 0.003). Conclusions The Burch colposuspension was better in controlling stress incontinence but it lead to an unacceptable high rate of prolapse recurrence. The anterior colporrhaphy was more effective in restoring vaginal anatomy but it was accompanied by an unacceptable low cure rate of stress incontinence. Neither of the two operations is recommended for women who are suffering from a combination of stress incontinence and advanced cystocele.
ISSN:1470-0328
0306-5456
1471-0528
1365-215X
DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13276.x