RESEARCH PAPER
Standardized modified colposuspension – mid-term results of prospective studies in one centre
 
More details
Hide details
1
Clinic of Operative and Oncologic Gynaecology, 1 st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University, Łódź, Poland
2
University of Greifswald, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Germany
 
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2015;22(2):293–296
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Burch colposuspension is still estimated as a ‘gold standard’ by the Cochrane Collaboration Group in the treatment of operative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) Some urogynecologists agree with this statement, some argue that Burch colposuspension should no longer be used.

Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate mid-term effects and patient’s satisfaction with standardized modified colposuspension performed in one centre.

Material and Methods:
Modified colposuspension was performed after standardization by 2 trained gynaecologists in 354 women. Data collected from 227 women were added to the final analysis of mid-term results. Average time from the operation to mid-term visit was 19 months (range 9–36 months).

Results:
At mid-term visit, 86.3% of patients were cured. There was no case of post-void urine residual over 100 ml. Pain near the operated region was reported by 1 woman from agricultural region. No one reported negative impact of modified colposuspension on sexual activity or dyspareunia.

Conclusions:
Modified colposuspension according to the E. Petri technique seems to be an operation that is safe and well-tolerated by women with preoperative stress urinary incontinence and paravaginal defect without urodynamic signs of ISD in mid-term observation.

 
REFERENCES (12)
1.
Chmaj-Wierzchowska K, Pięta B, Kotecka M, Michalak M, Sajdak S, Opala T. Three most important etiological factors of occurrence of stress urinary incontinence in nulliparous pre-and postmenopausal Polish women. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2012; 19(3): 581–585.
 
2.
Surkont G, Wlaźlak E, Dunicz-Sokołowska A, Suzin J. The efficacy of SUI treatment with Burch colposuspension evaluated with use of ITT analysis. Ginekol Pol. 2007; 5: 378–380.
 
3.
Demirci F, Petri E. Perioperative complications of Burch colposuspension. Int Urogynecol J. 2000; 11: 170–175.
 
4.
Giarenis I, Mastoroudes H, Cardozo L, Robinson D. What do we do when a midurethral tape fails? Rediscovery of open colposuspension as a salvage continence operation. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23: 1117–1122.
 
5.
Palma P. A requiem for the Burch. Int Urogynecol J. 2007; 18: 589–590.
 
6.
Petri E, Ashok K. Complications of synthetic slings used in female stress urinary incontinence and applicability of the new IUGA-ICS classification. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 165(2): 347–351.
 
7.
Ostergard DR. Lessons from the past: directions for the future. Do new marketed surgical procedures and grafts produce ethical, personal liability, and legal concerns for physicians? Int Urogynecol J. 2007; 18: 591–598.
 
8.
Ward KL, Hilton P. Tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence: 5-year follow up. UK and Ireland TVT Trial Group. BJOG. 2008; 115(2): 226–323.
 
9.
Koelbl H, M Halaska, Petri E. Burch colposuspension and TVT – perioperative results of a prospective randomised trial in female genuine stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2002; 13: S32.
 
10.
Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P, Varhos G. An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anaesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecology J. 1996; 7: 81–86.
 
11.
Burch JC. Urethrovaginal fixation to Cooper’s ligament for correction of stress incontinence, cystocele and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961; 81: 281–290.
 
12.
Wlaźlak E, Surkont G, Sobczuk A, Stetkiewicz T, Suzin J. Modified Burch colposuspension – analysis of the perioperative complications of first procedures. Prz Menopauz. 2005; 1: 61–67.
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966