Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 59, No. 1, 2005
Issue release date: January 2005
Section title: Original Article
Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005;59:19–23
(DOI:10.1159/000080619)

Randomized Comparison of Burch Urethropexy Procedures Concomitant with Gynecologic Operations

Üstün Y. · Engin-Üstün Y. · Güngör M. · Tezcan S.
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restriction apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Automatic perpetual access to all articles of the subscribed year(s)
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Article

Received: 8/19/2003
Accepted: 4/29/2004
Published online: 1/7/2005

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/GOI

Abstract

Objective: We compared the success of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension with the laparotomic Burch colposuspension for the treatment of genuine stress incontinence (GSI) concomitant with gynecologic operations. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two women with symptoms of GSI, also requiring additional gynecologic operations, were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 26) or laparotomic (n = 26) Burch colposuspension. For all patients complete histories were taken and physical examination, urinalysis, urine culture, multi-channel urodynamics with cystometry, uroflowmetry, and measurement of Valsalva leak-point pressure were performed. Variables analyzed included: age, surgical time, length of catheterization, number of days in hospital, and complications. Results: Both groups were similar in age, parity and menopausal status. Valsalva leak-point pressure significantly increased in the laparoscopy group after the operation. There were no statistical differences in other urodynamics in both groups. The mean operating time in the laparoscopy group was longer than in the laparotomy group. The laparoscopy group required a significantly shorter hospitalization and catheterization than the laparotomy group. The success and complication rates did not differ significantly for both groups. Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach for the treatment of GSI in patients requiring additional gynecologic procedures is associated with a shorter duration of hospital stay compared with the abdominal approach.


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Article

Received: 8/19/2003
Accepted: 4/29/2004
Published online: 1/7/2005

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/GOI


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Dainer M, Hall CD, Choe J, Bhatia NN: The Burch procedure: A comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1999;54:49–60.
  2. Ross JW: Laparoscopic Burch repair compared to laparotomy Burch for cure of urinary stress incontinence. Int J Urogynecol 1995;6:323–328.

    External Resources

  3. Kohli N, Jacobs PA, Sze EH, Roat TW, Karram MM: Open compared with laparoscopic approach to Burch colposuspension: A cost analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:411–415.
  4. Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Anderson JT: The standardizaton of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97(suppl 6):1–16.

    External Resources

  5. Tanagho E: Colpocystouretropexy, the way we do it. J Urol 1976;116:751–753.
  6. Smith ARB, Vancaillie TG: Laparoscopic colposuspension; in Sutton C, Diamond MP (eds): Endoscopic Surgery for Gynecologists, ed 2. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1998, pp 325–333.
  7. Saidi MH, Gallagher MS, Skop IP, Saidi JA, Sadler RK, Diaz KC: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic colposuspension: Short term cure rate, complications, and duration of hospital stay in comparison with Burch colposuspension. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:619–621.
  8. Walter AJ, Morse AN, Hammer RH, et al: Laparoscopic versus open Burch urethropexy: Comparison of morbidity and costs when performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:723–728.
  9. Brill AI: Laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension procedures; in Azziz R, Murphy AA (eds): Practical Manual of Operative Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy, ed 2. New York, Springer, 1997, pp 209–223.
  10. Liu CY: Laparoscopic treatment for genuine urinary stress incontinence. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1994;8:789–798.
  11. Su TH, Wang KG, Hsu CY, Wei HJ, Hong BK: Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and traditional colposuspensions in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:576–582.
  12. Hsieh GC, Klutke JJ, Kobak WH: Low Valsalva leak-point pressure and success of retropubic urethropexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2001;12:46–50.
  13. Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling J: Urinary Incontinence in Adults: Accurate and Chronic Management. Washington, US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1996.