Objective: To compare the long-term success rates of bladder neck suspension (BNS) and pubovaginal sling procedure in different types of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in order to identify appropriate treatment strategies for SUI. Methods: A total of 157 women who received anti-incontinence surgery were followed-up for a mean period of 58.1 ± 33.9 months. The surgical outcome was analyzed and was compared among the different types of SUI and among BNS and pubovaginal sling procedures. Results: SUI was classified as type I in 16 patients, type II in 111 patients, and type III in 34 patients. Surgical procedures included Gittes BNS (n = 62), Raz BNS (n = 53), and pubovaginal sling procedure (n = 42). The total success rate was 77.1%, including a 38.2% cure rate and a 38.9% significantly improved rate. Analysis of the results revealed that type III SUI had the lowest success rate (67.6%), while the pubovaginal sling procedure had the best success (93.9%) and cure rates (54.8%). The success rates of BNS were significantly lower than that of pubovaginal sling in type III SUI, less favorable in type II SUI, but remained high in type I SUI. 75% of patients with treatment failure had recurrence within the fist postoperative year. Conclusions: In this series of patients, the long-term cure rates of anti-incontinence surgeries are not satisfactory. BNS procedures had satisfactory results only in type I SUI while the pubovaginal sling procedure had better results in both types II and III SUI. The pubovaginal sling procedure might have better long-term results in the treatment of all types of SUI.

Keywords:
Stress urinary incontinence, Bladder neck suspension, Pubovaginal sling
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.