International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 229–233

A randomized controlled trial comparing a modified Burch procedure and a suburethral sling: long-term follow-up

  • Patrick J. Culligan
  • Roger P. Goldberg
  • Peter K. Sand
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term results of a modified Burch procedure with a sling procedure for the treatment of stress incontinence with a low-pressure urethra. Thirty-six women with urodynamic stress incontinence, low-pressure urethra, urethral hypermobility and no significant pelvic organ prolapse were randomly assigned to undergo either a modified Burch procedure (n=19) or a sling placement (n=17). Cure of the stress incontinence (defined as a negative stress test and negative pad-weight test) was the primary long-term endpoint. Secondary endpoints included subjective cure of stress incontinence (defined as no incontinence episodes on a 1-week voiding diary) and voiding function studies. Comparisons of group means were performed with the Mann–Whitney U-test, pooled variance t-tests and separate variance t-tests. Proportions were compared with Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression analysis was performed to control for covariates that differed in our two groups despite randomization. Long-term follow-up (mean=72.6 months) was available for 82% (28/34) of the original study group. The objective cure rates for the Burch and sling groups were 84.6% and 100%, respectively (P=0.17). Mean uroflowmetry rates for the Burch and sling groups were 7.38 and 6.8 ml/s, respectively (P=0.58, 95%CI −2.5, 4.4). Mean postvoid residual volumes for both groups were 35 ml (P=0.97, 95% CI −23.8, 65.9). Two sling patients (12%) required partial resection of their slings because of erosion. Both patients remained continent. In terms of voiding function and stress incontinence cure, there were no differences between groups undergoing modified Burch or sling procedures for treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence with low-pressure urethra.

Keywords

Burch Sling Stress incontinence Urethropexy 

Abbreviations

SI

Stress incontinence

UI

Urge incontinence

References

  1. 1.
    Leach GE, Dmochowski RR, Appell RA, Blaivas JG, Hadley HR, Luber KM, Mostwin JL, O'Donnell PD, Roehrborn CG (1997) Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. The American Urological Association. J Urol 158:875–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber AM, Walters MD (2000) Burch procedure compared with sling for stress urinary incontinence: A decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 96:867–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ostergard DR (1997) Primary slings for everyone with genuine stress incontinence. The argument against. Int Urogynecol J 8:321–322Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Appell RA (1998) Primary slings for everyone with genuine stress incontinence? The argument for. Int Urogynecol J 9:249–251Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enzelberger H, Helmer H, Schatten C (1996) Comparison of Burch and lyodura sling procedures for repair of unsuccessful incontinence surgery. Obstet Gynecol 88:251–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardozo LD, Stanton SL, Williams JE (1979_ Detrusor instability following surgery for genuine stress incontinence. Br J Urol 51:204–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sand PK, Bowen LW, Panganiban R, Ostergard DR (1987) The low pressure urethra as a factor in failed retropubic urethropexy. Obstet Gynecol 69:399–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sand PK, Winkler H, Blackhurst DW, Culligan PJ (2000) A prospective randomized study comparing modified Burch retropubic urethropexy and suburethral sling for treatment of genuine stress incontinence with low-pressure urethra. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:30–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baden WF, Walker TA, Lindsey JH (1968) The vaginal profile. Texas Med 64:56–58Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sand PK, Ostergard DR (1997) Urodynamics and the evaluation of female incontinence: A practical guide. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 37–66Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horbach NS, Blanco JS, Ostergard DR, Bent AE, Cornella JL (1998) A polytetrafluoroethylene suburethral sling procedure for the treatment of genuine stress incontinence in patients with low urethral closure pressure. Obstet Gynecol 71:648–652Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lose G, Gammelgaard J, Jorgensen TJ (1986) The one hour pad-weighing test: Reproducibility and the correlation between test results, the start volume in the bladder, and the diuresis. Neurourol Urodyn 5:17–25Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyman JF, Choi SC, Harkins SW, Wilson MS, Fantl JA (1988) The urinary diary in evaluation of incontinent women: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 71:812–817PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abrams PH, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Andersen JT (1988) Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Neurourol Urodyn 7:403–427Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bent AE, Ostergard DR, Zwick-Zaffuto M (1993) Tissue reaction to expanded polytetrafluoroethylene suburethral sling for urinary incontinence: clinical and histologic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169:1198-1204PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecological Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick J. Culligan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roger P. Goldberg
    • 1
  • Peter K. Sand
    • 1
  1. 1.Evanston Continence CenterNorthwestern University Medical SchoolEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics Gynecology and Women's Health, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryUniversity of Louisville Health Sciences CenterLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations