Burch Colposuspension Does Not Provide Any Additional Benefit to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in Patients With Urinary Incontinence

A Randomized Surgical Trial

Elisabetta Costantini, Massimo Lazzeri, Vittorio Bini, Michele Del Zingaro, Alessandro Zucchi, Massimo Porena

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1007-1012
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume180
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2008

Fingerprint

Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Urinary Incontinence
Equipment and Supplies
Exercise Test
Urinary Bladder
Quality of Life
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Surveys and Questionnaires

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 journalArticle

Costantini, Elisabetta ; Lazzeri, Massimo ; Bini, Vittorio ; Del Zingaro, Michele ; Zucchi, Alessandro ; Porena, Massimo. / Burch Colposuspension Does Not Provide Any Additional Benefit to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in Patients With Urinary Incontinence : A Randomized Surgical Trial. In: Journal of Urology. 2008 ; Vol. 180, No. 3. pp. 1007-1012.
@article{2b7b3a83a3854ef285616bdac6a3f03a,
title = "Burch Colposuspension Does Not Provide Any Additional Benefit to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in Patients With Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Surgical Trial",
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.",
keywords = "operative, pelvis, prolapse, surgical procedures, urinary incontinence",
author = "Elisabetta Costantini and Massimo Lazzeri and Vittorio Bini and {Del Zingaro}, Michele and Alessandro Zucchi and Massimo Porena",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.023",
language = "English",
volume = "180",
pages = "1007--1012",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

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 -