Colposuspension or sling for low urethral pressure stress incontinence?

被引：20

作者：

Maher C.F. ^{[1
,2
]}

Dwyer P.L. ^{[1
]}

Carey M.P. ^{[1
]}

Moran P.A. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Roy. Women's Mercy Hosp. for Women, Melbourne, Vic.

[2] Department of Urogynecology, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne

来源：

International Urogynecology Journal | 1999年 / 10卷 / 6期

关键词：

Colposuspension; Intrinsic sphincter deficiency; Sling;

D O I：

10.1007/s001920050065

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The aim of this study was to compare Burch colposuspension with the pubovaginal sling in the management of low urethral pressure urinary stress incontinence. Forty-five women with low urethral pressure stress incontinence were retrospectively reviewed: 21 underwent colposuspension and 24 a pubovaginal sling. The subjective success rate of the Burch colposuspension and the pubovaginal sling was 90% and 71% (P = 0.12), respectively; the objective success rate was 67% and 50% (P = 0.26), respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications, including de novo detrusor instability and symptomatic voiding dysfunction following the colposuspension, was 5% compared to 25% following the pubovaginal sling (P = 0.06). Colposuspension should be considered in the management of women undergoing surgical correction of low urethral pressure stress incontinence. In a clinically similar group of women, the Burch colposuspension had a superior subjective and objective success rate with a lower incidence of complications than did the pubovaginal sling. Although these differences failed to reach statistical significance, colposuspension can be safely considered in the management of women with low urethral pressure GSI.

引用

页码：384 / 389

页数：5

共 23 条

[1]

Urinary Incontinence in Adults. Clinical Practice Guidelines, (1992)

[2]

Summitt R.L., Bent A.E., Ostergard D.R., Harris T.A., Stress incontinence and low urethral closure pressure, J Reprod Med, 35, pp. 877-880, (1990)

[3]

McGuire E.J., Fitzpatrick C.C., Wan J., Et al., Clinical assessment of urethral sphincter function, J Urol, 150, pp. 1452-1454, (1993)

[4]

Swift S.E., Ostergard D.R., A comparison of stress leak-point pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure in women with genuine stress incontinence, Obstet Gynecol, 85, pp. 704-708, (1995)

[5]

McGuire E.J., Urodynamic findings in patients after failure of stress incontinence operation, Prog Clin Biol Res, 78, pp. 351-353, (1981)

[6]

Hilton P., Stanton S.L., Urethral pressure measurement by microtransducer: The results in symptom-free women and those with genuine stress incontinence, Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 90, pp. 919-933, (1983)

[7]

Sand P.K., Bowen L.W., Pangamiban R., Ostergard D.R., The low pressure urethra as a factor in failed retropubic urethropexy, Obstet Gynecol, 69, pp. 399-402, (1987)

[8]

Bowen L.W., Sand P.K., Ostergard D.R., Franti C.E., Unsuccessful Burch retropubic urethropexy: A case-controlled urodynamic study, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 160, pp. 452-458, (1989)

[9]

Blaivas J.G., Jacobs B.Z., Pubo-vaginal sling for the treatment of complicated stress urinary incontinence, J Urol, 145, pp. 1214-1218, (1991)

[10]

McGuire E.J., Bennett C.J., Konnak J.A., Sonda L.P., Savastano J.A., Experience with pubovaginal slings for urinary incontinence at the University of Michigan, J Urol, 138, pp. 525-526, (1987)

← 1 2 3 →