Purpose: Ever since Pereyra described needle suspension of the bladder neck for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women, numerous modifications have been presented. There were variations in the success reported by different authors. We report 3-year follow-up results in 146 women operated on for stress urinary incontinence using Raz, Burch and our own new procedures. Materials and Methods: During a 5-year period, 146 women were operated on for genuine stress urinary incontinence. Using the method of Raz, and transvaginal Burch as well as the Burch retropubic urethropexy, a modified bladder neck suspension was performed in 46 (32%), 44 (30%) and 56 (38%) patients, respectively. In all patients a prior gynecological or urological operation for urinary incontinence and a clear neuropathic condition had been excluded before surgery. The routine diagnostic procedure consisted of multichannel cystometry, voiding cystourethrography, infusion urography and cystoscopy. A pressure-flow electromyography study was done in patients with a residual volume greater than 50 ml following voiding. The operations were performed by the same surgeon (I.G.). Initial follow-up was done after 12 months and then every year. Results: Urodynamic testing did not reveal significant differences between Burch and Raz (p = 0.2652), Raz and transvaginal Burch (p = 0.5745) as well as between Burch and transvaginal Burch procedures (p = 0.7602; Fisher’s exact test). Three years after surgery, 50 of 56 (89.3%; Burch procedure), 37 of 46 (80.4%; Raz modification) and 38 of 44 patients (86.4%; transvaginal Burch) were continent. Conclusions: There is no reason (except patient condition) to prefer any of the numerous modifications of bladder neck suspension. We believe that the success of the operation lies in adequate mobilization of the bladder neck and urethra as well as in a surgeon’s familiarity with the procedure.

Keywords:
Stress urinary incontinence, Operative technique, comparison
1.
McGuire EJ, Litton B, Kohorn EI, Pepe V: The value of urodynamic testing in stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 1980;124:256–258.
2.
Diokno AC, Brock BM, Brown MB, Herzog AR: Prevalence of urinary incontinence and other urological symptoms in the noninstitutionalized elderly. J Urol 1986;136:1022–1025.
3.
Jeffcoate TNA: Principles governing treatment of stress incontinence of urine in females. Br J Urol 1965;37:633–638.
4.
Marshall V, Vaughan ED, Parnell JP: Suprapubic vesicourethral suspension (Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz) for stress incontinence; in Walsh PC, Gittes RF, Perlmutter AL, Stamey TA (eds): Campbell’s Urology. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1986, vol 3, chapt 73, pp 2711–2717.
5.
Burch JC: Cooper’s ligament urethrovesical suspension for stress incontinence. Nine year’s experience – Results, complications, technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1968;100:764–774.
6.
Pereyra AJ, Lebherz TB, Growden WA, Powers JA: Pubourethral support in perspective: Modified Pereyra procedure for urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:643–648.
7.
Stamey TA: Endoscopic suspension of the vesical neck for urinary incontinence. Gynecol Obstet 1973;136:547–554.
8.
Raz S: Modified bladder neck suspension for female stress incontinence. Urology 1981;17:82–85.
9.
Gilja I, Šarac S, Radej M: A modified Raz bladder neck suspension operation (transvaginal Burch). J Urol 1995;153:1455–1457.
10.
Gilja I, Kovačić M, Radej M, Parazajder J: Functional obstruction of bladder neck in men. Neurourol Urodyn 1989;8:433–438.
11.
Diem K: Random numbers; in Scientific tables. Ardley, Geigy Pharmaceuticals 131, 1962.
12.
Ostergard DR: Appendix III data recording forms for gynecologic urology; in Ostergard DR (ed): Gynecologic Urology and Urodynamics: Theory and Practice. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1985, pp 600–601.
13.
Park GS, Miller EJ: Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A comparison of the Kelly plication, Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz and Pereyra procedures. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:575–579.
14.
Riggs JA: Retropubic cystourethropexy: A review of two operative procedures with long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1986;68:98–105.
15.
Green DF, McGuire EJ, Lytton B: A comparison of endoscopic suspension of the vesical neck versus anterior urethropexy for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1986;136:1205–1207.
16.
Bhatia NN, Bergman A: Modified Burch versus Pereyra retropubic urethropexy for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:255–261.
17.
Stanton SI, Cardozo LD: A comparison of vaginal and suprapubic surgery in the correction of incontinence due to urethral sphincter incompetence. Br J Urol 1979;51:497–499.
18.
Bergman A, Ballard CA, Koonings PP: Comparison of three different surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: Prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:1102–1106.
19.
Bergman A, Koonings PP; Ballard CA: Primary stress urinary incontinence and pelvic relaxation: Prospective randomized comparison of three different operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:97–101.
20.
Fowler JE Jr: Experience with suprapubic vesicourethral suspension and endoscopic suspension of the bladder neck for stress urinary incontinence in females. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1986;162:437–441.
21.
Brocklehurst JC, Dillane JB: Studies of the female bladder in old age. II. Cystometrograms in 100 incontinent women. Gerontol Clin 1966;8:306–319.
22.
Ouslander JG, Ulman GC, Urman HN, Rubenstein LZ: Incontinence among nursing home patients: Clinical and functional correlates. J Am Geriatr Soc 1987;35:324–330.
23.
McGuire EJ: Urinary dysfunction in the aged: Neurological considerations. NY Acad Med 1980;56:275–282.
1998
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.