Advertisement

Laparoscopic versus open burch retropubic urethropexy: Comparison of morbidity and costs when performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs

      Abstract

      Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the morbidity and cost that are associated with laparoscopic and open Burch retropubic urethropexy when they are performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs. Study design: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients who had undergone laparoscopic (n = 76) or open (n = 143) Burch retropubic urethropexy with at least 1 concurrent vaginal repair for symptomatic prolapse. We compared demographic data, level of prolapse, operative and postoperative details, medical and surgical histories, complications, and hospital charges. Results: The group with open retropubic urethropexy had an older age, greater degree of prolapse, fewer concurrent hysterectomies, and a greater number of vaginal procedures than the group with laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy. There were minimal differences in complications and no differences in the estimated blood loss, operative time, hemoglobin change, hospitalization, or hospital charges between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Traditional benefits of laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy were not apparent when vaginal prolapse repairs were performed. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:723-8.)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wiskind AK
        • Stanton SL
        The Burch colposuspension for genuine stress urinary incontinence.
        in: 8th ed. Te Lindey's operative gynecology updates. Vol 1. : Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia1997: 1-13
        • Sand PK
        • Bowen LW
        • Panganiban R
        • Ostergard DR
        The low pressure urethra as a factor in failed retropubic urethropexy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 69: 399-402
        • Bergman A
        • Elia G
        Three surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 173: 66-71
        • Alcalay M
        • Monga A
        • Stanton SL
        Burch colposuspension: a 10–20 year follow up.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995; 102: 740-745
        • 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
        • 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
        • Das S
        Comparative outcome analysis of laparoscopic colposuspension, abdominal colposuspension and vaginal needle suspension for female urinary incontinence.
        J Urol. 1998; 160: 368-371
        • 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
        • Summitt RL
        • Lucente VV
        • Karram MM
        • Shull BL
        • Bent AE
        Randomized comparison of laparoscopic and transabdominal Burch urethropexy for the treatment of genuine stress incontinence [abstract].
        Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95: S2
        • Ross JW
        Multichannel urodynamic evaluation of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension for genuine stress incontinence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 55-59
        • Saidi MH
        • Sadler RK
        • Saidi JA
        Extraperitoneal laparoscopic colposuspension for genuine urinary stress incontinence.
        J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998; 5: 247-252
        • Polascik TJ
        • Moore RG
        • Rosenberg MT
        • Kavoussi LR
        Comparison of laparoscopic and open retropubic urethropexy for treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
        Urology. 1995; 45: 647-652
        • Liu CY
        Laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension (Burch procedure): a review of 58 cases.
        J Reprod Med. 1993; 38: 526-530
        • Cooper MJ
        • Cario G
        • Lam A
        • Carlton M
        A review of results in a series of 113 laparoscopic colposuspensions.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 36: 44-48
        • Persson J
        • Wolner-Hanssen P
        Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension for stress urinary incontinence: a randomized comparison of one or two sutures on each side of the urethra.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95: 151-155
        • Sze EH
        • Kohli N
        • Miklos JR
        • Roat TW
        • Karram MM
        Comparative morbidity and charges associated with route of hysterectomy and concomitant Burch colposuspension.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90: 42-45
        • Tanagho EA
        Colpocystourethropexy: the way we do it.
        J Urol. 1976; 116: 751-753
        • Lee RA
        Atlas of gynecologic surgery.
        : Saunders, Philadelphia1992
        • Lyons TL
        Minimally invasive treatment of urinary stress incontinence and laparoscopically directed repair of pelvic floor defects.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 38: 380-391
        • Lam AM
        • Jenkins GJ
        • Hyslop RS
        Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension for stress incontinence: preliminary results.
        Med J Aust. 1995; 162: 18-21