Literature DB >> 12535443

Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women.

M C Lapitan1, D J Cody, A M Grant.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a common and potentially debilitating problem. Open retropubic colposuspension is a surgical treatment which involves lifting the tissues near the bladder neck and proximal urethra in the area behind the anterior pubic bones to correct deficient urethral closure.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of open retropubic colposuspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group specialised register (to April 2002) and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted investigators to locate extra studies. Date of the most recent search: April 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress or mixed incontinence that included open retropubic colposuspension surgery in at least one trial group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion and data extracted by two of the reviewers. Trial data were analysed by intervention. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated. MAIN
RESULTS: This review included 33 trials involving a total of 2403 women. Overall cure rates were 68.9% to 88.0% for open retropubic colposuspension. Two small studies suggests lower failure rates after open retropubic colposuspension than conservative treatment. Evidence from six trials showed a lower failure rate for subjective cure after open retropubic colposuspension than after anterior colporrhaphy. Such benefit was maintained over time (RR of failure 0.51; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76 before the first year, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57 at one to five years, RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.75 in periods beyond 5 years). In comparison with needle suspensions there was a lower failure rate after colposuspension in the first year after surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03), after the first year (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.71) and beyond 5 years (RR 0.32; 95% CI 15 to 0.71). Evidence from three trials in comparison with suburethral slings found no significant difference in failure rates. Patient-reported failure rates in short-, medium- and long-term follow-ups showed no significant difference between open and laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, but with wide confidence intervals. In two trials failure was less common after Burch (RR 0.38 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76) as than the Marshall Marchetti Krantz procedure at one to five year follow-up There were few data at any other follow-up. In general, the evidence available does not show a higher morbidity or complication rate with open retropubic colposuspension, compared to the other surgical techniques, although pelvic organ prolapse is more common than after anterior colporrhaphy and sling procedures. REVIEWER'S
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available indicates that Open retropubic colposuspension is the most effective treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence especially in the long term. Within the first year of treatment, the overall continence rate is approximately 85-90%. After five years, approximately 70% patients can expect to be dry. Newer minimal access procedures like tension free vaginal tape look promising in comparison with open colposuspension but their long-term performance is not known. Laparoscopic colposuspension should allow speedier recovery but its relative safety and effectiveness is not known yet.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12535443     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  11 in total

Review 1.  What's a 'cure'? Patient-centred outcomes of treatments for stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  R M Freeman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-09-12

2.  Minimally invasive treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: 100 cases using SPARC sling.

Authors:  K Siddiqui; H Raj; R J Flynn; R Grainger; J A Thornhill
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 3.  Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

Authors:  Haroon Rehman; Carlos A Bezerra; Homero Bruschini; June D Cody; Patricia Aluko
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-07-26

Review 4.  Urinary incontinence in women: part 1 of a series of articles on incontinence.

Authors:  Christian Dannecker; Klaus Friese; Christian Stief; Ricarda Bauer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 5.  [Stress incontinence and mixed incontinence].

Authors:  S Schumacher; S C Müller
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Pharmacotherapy for stress urinary incontinence : present and future options.

Authors:  Norman R Zinner; Stephanie C Koke; Lars Viktrup
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.546

7.  Trends in surgical management of stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Jennifer T Anger; Aviva E Weinberg; Michael E Albo; Ariana L Smith; Ja-Hong Kim; Larissa V Rodríguez; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-06-07       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Stress urinary incontinence: long-term results of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension.

Authors:  Domenico Prezioso; Fabrizio Iacono; Giovanni Di Lauro; Ester Illiano; Giuseppe Romeo; Antonio Ruffo; Nicola Russo; Bruno Amato
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

Authors:  Lucky Saraswat; Haroon Rehman; Muhammad Imran Omar; June D Cody; Patricia Aluko; Cathryn Ma Glazener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-28

10.  Long-term results of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension for stress urinary incontinence in women.

Authors:  Jeong Hee Hong; Myung-Soo Choo; Kyu-Sung Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2009-11-09       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.