INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of open colposuspension for women with urodynamic stress incontinence who had previously undergone a failed midurethral tape. METHODS: A retrospective study of 13 women who had undergone open colposuspension after a failed midurethral tape was conducted. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 12 months, subjective and objective cure rate were 85% and 77%, respectively. Thirty percent of the women developed de novo detrusor overactivity that responded to antimuscarinic treatment. Long-term voiding difficulty was observed in only one patient, who performed clean intermittent self-catheterization for 3 months. Posterior vaginal wall prolapse requiring pelvic floor repair was found in three women (23%) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Open colposuspension is an effective option for treating persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral tape, with a high success rate.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of open colposuspension for women with urodynamic stress incontinence who had previously undergone a failed midurethral tape. METHODS: A retrospective study of 13 women who had undergone open colposuspension after a failed midurethral tape was conducted. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 12 months, subjective and objective cure rate were 85% and 77%, respectively. Thirty percent of the women developed de novo detrusor overactivity that responded to antimuscarinic treatment. Long-term voiding difficulty was observed in only one patient, who performed clean intermittent self-catheterization for 3 months. Posterior vaginal wall prolapse requiring pelvic floor repair was found in three women (23%) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Open colposuspension is an effective option for treating persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral tape, with a high success rate.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: R Marijn Houwert; Pieter L Venema; Annelies E Aquarius; Hein W Bruinse; Jan Paul W R Roovers; Harry A M Vervest Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-06-26 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Laurent de Landsheere; Jean Philippe Lucot; Jean Michel Foidart; Michel Cosson Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Brian S Buckley; Adrian M Grant; Douglas G Tincello; Adrian S Wagg; Lester Firkins Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Evangelia Bakali; Eugenie Johnson; Brian S Buckley; Paul Hilton; Ben Walker; Douglas G Tincello Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-09-04