Send to

Choose Destination
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 Jan-Feb;16(1):15-8; discussion 18. Epub 2004 Jun 30.

Laparoscopic colposuspension versus urethropexy: a case-control series.

Author information

Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.


Laparoscopic colposuspension (LC) was first described in the early 1990s as a technique distinct from open Burch colposuspension. Subsequently, however, LC was closely modelled along the lines of the Burch technique, and the distinct features of the original urethropexy (UP) were largely disregarded. In this case-control series the authors aimed to compare symptoms and anatomical outcomes after standard LC and urethropexy +/- paravaginal repair. The design was a clinical retrospective case-control trial. The setting was the urogynaecology and endogynaecology services of tertiary hospitals. Fifty patients after LC and 50 women after UP surgery, matched for age, body mass index, previous surgery, pre-existing urge incontinence and length of follow-up (1.01 year, range 0.02-3.54 years) for LC and 0.98 years (range 0.06-3.55 years) for UP). Intervention consisted of standardised interview and translabial ultrasound imaging. There were no significant differences for subjective cure of stress incontinence (80% for UP vs. 74% for LC), postoperative urge incontinence, frequency and nocturia. Significantly more UP patients complained of voiding dysfunction (p=0.01). Significant differences were found for urethral rotation, position of the bladder neck on Valsalva and bladder neck descent on Valsalva (all p<0.001). Both procedures were shown to be effective in curing stress incontinence. The incidence of bladder symptoms was comparable, with the exception of voiding difficulty. Significant differences were observed regarding anatomical appearances, with urethropexies showing more recurrent bladder neck hypermobility and cystocele.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center