Outcomes of stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing TOT versus Burch colposuspension with abdominal sacrocolpopexy
Introduction and hypothesis
To compare postoperative rates of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in patients with pelvic organ prolapse and SUI undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) with Burch colposuspension or a transobturator tape (TOT) sling.
In this retrospective cohort study, medical records of 117 patients who underwent ASC with Burch (n = 60) or TOT (n = 57) between 2008 and 2010 at NYU Winthrop Hospital were assessed. Preoperative evaluation included history, physical examination, cough stress test (CST), and multichannel urodynamic studies (MUDS). Primary outcomes were postoperative continence at follow-up up to 12 weeks. Patients considered incontinent reported symptoms of SUI and had a positive CST or MUDS. Secondary outcomes included intra- and postoperative complications. Associations were analyzed by Fisher’s exact, McNemar’s and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests.
The groups were similar regarding age, BMI, parity, Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP), and prior abdominal surgery (p = 0.07–0.76). They differed regarding preoperative SUI diagnosed by self-reported symptoms, CST, or MUDS (TOT 89.5–94.7%, Burch 60.7–76.3%, p < 0.0001–0.007). The TOT group had lower rates of postoperative SUI (TOT 12.5%, Burch 30%, OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.04, 0.62). Relative risk reduction (RRR) in postoperative SUI for the TOT group compared with the Burch group was 79%–86%. There were no differences concerning intra- and postoperative complications. The Burch group had a higher rate of reoperation for persistent/recurrent SUI (Burch 25%, TOT 12% p = 0.078).
The TOT group experienced a greater reduction in postoperative incontinence, and the Burch group underwent more repeat surgeries. The TOT sling may be superior in patients undergoing concomitant ASC.
KeywordsAbdominal sacral colpopexy Burch colposuspension Pelvic organ prolapse Stress urinary incontinence Transobturator tape sling
Special thanks to Dr. Anthony Vintzileos for his support and Dr. Salma Rahimi for her assistance with data collection.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 1.Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Cosson M, Boukerrou M, Narducci F, Occelli B, Querleu D, Crépin G. Long-term results of the Burch procedure combined with abdominal sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(2):104–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-002-1028-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Burgio KL, Nygaard IE, Richter HE, et al. Bladder symptoms 1 year after abdominal sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch colposuspension in women without preoperative stress incontinence symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):647.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Del Zingaro M, Zucchi A, Porena M. Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit to pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence: a randomized surgical trial. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1007–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Del Zingaro M, Frumenzio E, Porena M. Pelvic organ prolapse repair with and without concomitant Burch colposuspension in incontinent women: a randomized controlled trial with at least 5-year followup. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:967923. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/967923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Holdø B, Verelst M, Svenningsen R, Milsom I, Skjeldestad FE. Long-term clinical outcomes with the retropubic tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure compared to Burch colposuspension for correcting stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1739–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3345-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Delorme E. Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Prog Urol. 2001;11(6):1306–13.Google Scholar
- 20.Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Blandon RE, Occhino JA, Weaver AL, McGree ME, et al. Burch retropubic urethropexy compared with midurethral sling with concurrent sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(4):828–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Finazzi Agrò E, Soligo M, Li Marzi V, Digesu A, Serati M. Long-term outcomes of TOT and TVT procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1119–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3275-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Law TSM, Cheung RYK, Chung TKH, Chan SSC. Efficacy and outcomes of transobturator tension-free vaginal tape with or without concomitant pelvic floor repair surgery for urinary stress incontinence: five-year follow-up. Hong Kong Med J. 2015;21(4):333–8. https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj144397.Google Scholar