Objective: To compare the outcome, 12 months after surgery, of three principal categories of procedure (colposuspension, needle suspension and anterior colporrhaphy) used for treating stress incontinence. Methods: A non–randomised trial design comparing 221 colposuspensions, 54 needle suspensions and 130 anterior colporrhaphies performed by 49 surgeons in 18 hospitals in the North Thames health region in 1993–1994. Four outcomes were considered: complications, severity of stress incontinence, social impact of incontinence, and activities of daily living score. Results were adjusted, using logistic regression, for 13 case–mix variables. Results: Significant differences existed between the three procedures in the characteristics of the patients. The cure rate varied by procedure (colposuspension 34% dry; needle suspensions 13%; anterior colporrhaphy 19%). Two thirds of women, however, reported an improvement (colposuspension 75%; needle suspension 68%; anterior colporrhaphy 55%). After adjusting for confounders, colposuspension was significantly more likely to result in an improvement than anterior colporrhaphy (odds ratio 2.2). While this was reflected in improvements in the social life of the women, the difference between procedures did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.05). Conclusion: These results suggest surgery for stress incontinence in typical settings is not as good as reported in textbooks. This is mostly because this study was based on women’s own reports (and not surgeons’ reports) and partly because of the unselected nature of the patients. The information on outcomes given to patients should be reviewed and a large, pragmatic randomised trial including patient–assessed outcomes is needed.

Keywords:
Stress incontinence, Colposuspension, Needle suspension, Anterior colporrhaphy, Patient–assessed outcomes
1.
Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling J, et al: Urinary Incontinence in Adults: Acute and Chronic Management. Clinical Practice Guideline, No 2, 1996 update. Rockville, US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. AHCPR Publication No 96–0682, March 1996.
2.
Black NA, Downs SH: The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: A systematic review. Br J Urol 1996;78:497– 510.
3.
Stanton SL: Disorders of the lower urinary tract; in Varma TR (ed): Clinical Gynaecology. London, Arnold, 1991, pp 303–321.
4.
Bergman A, Ballard CA: Diagnosis and treatment of urinary incontinence; in Mishell DR, Bremner PF (eds): Management of Common Problems in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ed 3. Boston, Blackwell, 1994, 489–496.
5.
DeCherney AH, Pernoll ML (eds): Current Obstetrics and Gynecologic Diagnosis and Treatment, ed 8. London, Prentice–Hall, 1994, pp 836–845.
6.
Cardozo L: Urinary incontinence and other disorders of the lower urinary tract in women; in Whitfield CR (ed): Dewhurst’s Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for Post–Graduates, ed 5. Oxford, Blackwell, 1995, 653–680.
7.
Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C: Threats to applicability of randomised trials: Exclusions and selective participations. J Health Serv Res Policy 1994;2:112–121.
8.
Liapis A, Pyrgiotis E, Kontoravdis A, Louridas C, Zourlas PA: Genuine stress incontinence: Prospective randomised comparisons of two operative methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;64:69–72.
9.
Bump RC, Hunt WG, Theofrastous JP, Addison WA, Fantl JA, Wyman JF, McClish DK: Randomized prospective comparison of needle colposuspension versus endopelvic fascia plication for potential stress incontinence prophylaxis in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction for stage III or IV pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:326–333.
10.
Colombo M, Maggioni A, Scalambrino S, Vitobello D, Milani R: Surgery for genitourinary prolapse and stress incontinence: A randomised trial of posterior pubourethral ligament plication and Pereyra suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:337–343.
11.
Berglund AL, Eisemann M, Lalos A, Lalos O: Predictive factors of the outcome of primary surgical treatment of stress incontinence in women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1997;31:49–55.
12.
Gilja I, Puskar D, Mazuran B, Radej M: Comparative analysis of bladder neck suspension using Raz, Burch and transvaginal Burch procedures. Eur Urol 1998;33:298–302.
13.
Kammerer–Doak DN, Dorin MH, Rogers RG, Cousin MO: A randomized trial of Burch retropubic urethropexy and anterior colporrhaphy for stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:75–78.
14.
Wang AC: Burch colposuspension versus Stamey bladder neck suspension. J Reprod Med 1996;41:529–533.
15.
Athanassopoulos A, Barbalias G: Burch colposuspension versus Stamey endoscopic bladder neck suspension: A urodynamic appraisal. Urol Int 1996;56:23–27.
16.
Clemens JQ, Stern JA, Buschman WA, Schaeffer AJ: Long–term results of the Stamey bladder neck suspension: Direct comparison with the Marshall–Marchetti–Krantz procedure. J Urol 1998;160:372–376.
17.
Stanton SL, Chamberlain GVP, Holmes DM: Randomised study of the anterior repair and colposuspension operation in the control genuine stress incontinence. Proc Int Incontinence Soc 15th Annu Meet, Sept 1985, pp 236–237.
18.
Klarskov P, Vedel Jepsen P, Dorph S: Reliability of voiding colpo–cysto–urethrography in female urinary stress incontinence before and after treatment. Acta Radiol 1988;29:685–688.
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.
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.
21.
Elia G, Bergman A: Prospective randomized comparison of three surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence: Five year follow–up. Neurourol Urodyn 1994;4:498–500.
22.
German KA, Kynaston H, Weight S, Stephenson TP: A prospective randomized trial comparing a modified needle suspension procedure with the vagina/obturator shelf procedure for genuine stress incontinence. Br J Urol 1994; 74:188–190.
23.
Lilford R, Jackson J: Equipoise and the ethics of randomisation. J R Soc Med 1995;88:552– 559.
24.
Black N, Griffiths J, Pope C, Bowling A, Abel P: Impact of surgery for stress incontinence on morbidity: Cohort study. BMJ 1997;315: 1493–1498.
25.
Black NA, Bowling A, Griffiths JM, Pope C, Abel PD: Impact of surgery for stress incontinence on the social lives of women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:605–612.
26.
Black NA, Griffiths JM, Pope C, Stanley J, Bowling A, Abel PD: Sociodemographic and symptomatic characteristics of women undergoing stress incontinence surgery in the UK: Br J Urol 1996;78:847–855.
27.
Black NA, Griffiths J, Pope C: Development of a symptom severity index and a symptom impact index for stress incontinence in women. Neurourol Urodyn 1996;15:630–640.
28.
Doll HA, Black NA, McPherson CK, Flood AB, Williams GB, Smith JC: Mortality, morbidity and complications following TURP for benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Urol 1992;147: 1566–1573.
29.
Clarke A, Black N, Rowe P, Mott S, Howle K: Indications for and outcome of total abdominal hysterectomy for benign disease: A prospective cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102:611–620.
30.
Hutchings A, Griffiths J, Black NA: Surgery for stress incontinence: Factors associated with a successful outcome: Br J Urol 1998;82:634– 641.
2001
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.