Advertisement

Burch Colposuspension

  • Ajay K. SinglaEmail author
  • Nirmish Singla
Chapter

Abstract

The surgical management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women has evolved over the last several decades, with bladder neck suspension procedures representing the oldest approach. The Burch colposuspension in particular was originally introduced in 1961 and has since undergone modification in technique, most recently with the introduction of robotic approaches. With the recent rise in litigation and concerns over vaginal mesh, there has been renewed interest in bladder suspension procedures. Outcomes remain promising for this technique, based on its long-term efficacy and durability. In this chapter, we present an index patient with SUI who experienced favorable outcomes following Burch colposuspension. We discuss surgical indications, patient counseling, intraoperative techniques, post-operative considerations, and contemporary outcomes using this approach. In the accompanying video supplements, we provide an open Burch colposuspension as well as an illustrative example demonstrating a robotic Burch colposuspension.

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence Bladder suspension Burch colposuspension Retropubic suspension Surgical technique Outcomes 

Supplementary material

Video 4.1

(MP4 18110 kb)

Video 4.2

(MP4 108000 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Melville JL, Katon W, Delaney K, Newton K. Urinary incontinence in US women: a population based study. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:537–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hampel C, Weinhold D, Benken N, Eggersmann C, Thuroff JW. Definition of overactive bladder and epidemiology of urinary incontinence. Urology. 1997;50(suppl 6A):4–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burch JC. Urethrovaginal fixation to Cooper’s ligament for correction of stress incontinence, cystocele and prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961;81:281–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanagho EA. Colpocystourethropexy: the way we do it. J Urol. 1978;116:751–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lapitan MC, Cody DJ. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6, CD002912.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong JH, Choo MS, Lee KS. Long term results of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension for stress urinary incontinence in women. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24(6):1182–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moehrer B, Carey M, Wilson D. Laparoscopic colposuspension: a systematic review. BJOG. 2003;23(3):277–83.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albo ME, Richter HE, Brubaker L, et al. Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2143–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kraus SR, Lemack GE, Richter HE, et al. Changes in urodynamic measures Two years after Burch colposuspension or autologous sling surgery. Urology. 2011;78(6):1263–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tennstedt SL, Litman HJ, Zimmern P, et al. Quality of life after surgery for stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1631–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brubaker L, Richter H, Norten P, Albo ME, et al. 5-year continence rates, satisfaction and adverse events of Burch urethropexy and fascial sling surgery for urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2012;187:1324–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asicioglu O, Gungorduk K, Besimoglu B, Ertas IE, Yildirim G, Celebi I, et al. A 5-year follow-up study comparing Burch colposuspension and transobturator tape for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125(1):73–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ward KL, Hilton P, UK and Ireland TVT Trial Group. Tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence: 5-year follow-up. BJOG. 2008;115:226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Karram MM, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension versus tension-free vaginal tape: long term follow-up. BJOG. 2008;115:219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel PR, Borahay MA, Puentes AR, et al. Initial experience with robotic retropubic urethropexy compared to open retropubic urethropexy. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;315680:1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA
  2. 2.UrologyUT SouthwesternDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations