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, 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.