Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated the impact of Burch colposuspension as an anti-incontinence measure in patients with urinary incontinence undergoing abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Materials and Methods: A total of 47 women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence were randomly assigned to abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair and concomitant Burch colposuspension (24 patients, group A) or pelvic organ prolapse repair alone without an anti-incontinence procedure (23 patients, group B). They were followed up at 3, 6 and 9 months after surgery, and then annually. The primary outcome measures were anatomical outcome and changes in incontinence status as indicated by a bladder diary, the number of daily pads and the stress test. Secondary end points were changes in subjective symptoms and quality of life as measured by the Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire. Results: In group A 13 of 24 patients (54.2%) were still incontinent after surgery compared with 9 of 23 (39.1%) in group B. The intragroup difference was significant (group A p = 0.003, group B p = 0.0001), but there was no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.459 for A vs B). No significant intergroup difference emerged in anatomical outcome. Urogenital Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores improved in both groups (p = 0.0001) but the intergroup difference was not significant in either questionnaire (p = 0.769 and p = 0.327, respectively). Conclusions: Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit in pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1007-1012 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Urology |
| Volume | 180 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sep 2008 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- operative
- pelvis
- prolapse
- surgical procedures
- urinary incontinence
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Urology
Cite this
Burch Colposuspension Does Not Provide Any Additional Benefit to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in Patients With Urinary Incontinence : A Randomized Surgical Trial. / Costantini, Elisabetta; Lazzeri, Massimo; Bini, Vittorio; Del Zingaro, Michele; Zucchi, Alessandro; Porena, Massimo.
In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 180, No. 3, 09.2008, p. 1007-1012.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Burch Colposuspension Does Not Provide Any Additional Benefit to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in Patients With Urinary Incontinence
T2 - A Randomized Surgical Trial
AU - Costantini, Elisabetta
AU - Lazzeri, Massimo
AU - Bini, Vittorio
AU - Del Zingaro, Michele
AU - Zucchi, Alessandro
AU - Porena, Massimo
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - Purpose: We evaluated the impact of Burch colposuspension as an anti-incontinence measure in patients with urinary incontinence undergoing abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Materials and Methods: A total of 47 women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence were randomly assigned to abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair and concomitant Burch colposuspension (24 patients, group A) or pelvic organ prolapse repair alone without an anti-incontinence procedure (23 patients, group B). They were followed up at 3, 6 and 9 months after surgery, and then annually. The primary outcome measures were anatomical outcome and changes in incontinence status as indicated by a bladder diary, the number of daily pads and the stress test. Secondary end points were changes in subjective symptoms and quality of life as measured by the Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire. Results: In group A 13 of 24 patients (54.2%) were still incontinent after surgery compared with 9 of 23 (39.1%) in group B. The intragroup difference was significant (group A p = 0.003, group B p = 0.0001), but there was no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.459 for A vs B). No significant intergroup difference emerged in anatomical outcome. Urogenital Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores improved in both groups (p = 0.0001) but the intergroup difference was not significant in either questionnaire (p = 0.769 and p = 0.327, respectively). Conclusions: Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit in pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence.
AB - Purpose: We evaluated the impact of Burch colposuspension as an anti-incontinence measure in patients with urinary incontinence undergoing abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Materials and Methods: A total of 47 women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence were randomly assigned to abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair and concomitant Burch colposuspension (24 patients, group A) or pelvic organ prolapse repair alone without an anti-incontinence procedure (23 patients, group B). They were followed up at 3, 6 and 9 months after surgery, and then annually. The primary outcome measures were anatomical outcome and changes in incontinence status as indicated by a bladder diary, the number of daily pads and the stress test. Secondary end points were changes in subjective symptoms and quality of life as measured by the Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire. Results: In group A 13 of 24 patients (54.2%) were still incontinent after surgery compared with 9 of 23 (39.1%) in group B. The intragroup difference was significant (group A p = 0.003, group B p = 0.0001), but there was no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.459 for A vs B). No significant intergroup difference emerged in anatomical outcome. Urogenital Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores improved in both groups (p = 0.0001) but the intergroup difference was not significant in either questionnaire (p = 0.769 and p = 0.327, respectively). Conclusions: Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit in pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence.
KW - operative
KW - pelvis
KW - prolapse
KW - surgical procedures
KW - urinary incontinence
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48649107617&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48649107617&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.023
DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.023
M3 - Article
VL - 180
SP - 1007
EP - 1012
JO - Journal of Urology
JF - Journal of Urology
SN - 0022-5347
IS - 3
ER -