Laparoscopic colposuspension: A short term urodynamic follow-up and a three-year questionnaire-study

15Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. The purpose of the study was to evaluate outcome, urodynamic correlates and adverse effects of laparoscopic colposuspension using polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. Methods. Eighty-five consecutive women with primary stress urinary incontinence at one university hospital were included in this prospective non-controlled study. During video-laparoscopic surgery, two polytetrafluoroethylene sutures were placed on each side of the urethra and fixed to the Cooper ligaments. Pre- and postoperative clinical and urodynamic evaluations, including pad-test, were performed. A mailed questionnaire was used to evaluate cure-rate and complication-rate three years after surgery. Results. At follow-up examination, we considered 62 of 76 women (82%) as being cured, ten (13%) improved, and four (5%) as being failures. The questionnaires were returned by 80 women; 41 (51%) considering themselves as cured and 31 (39%) improved, and eight women (10%,) as unimproved or minimally improved. Clinical outcome was not associated with alterations in urethral functional length or in urethral closing pressure. Short preoperative urethral functional length was associated with failure (p = 0.04). The incidence of new onset urge symptoms and of new onset recto/enterocele was 13% and 9% respectively. Conclusions. Laparoscopic colposuspension resulted in acceptable cure rate in short-, and medium long term evaluation. However, a decline in cure rate was observed. Cured women had significantly longer preoperative urethral functional length than women still leaking after surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Persson, J. E. U., Bossmar, T., & Wølner-Hanssen, P. (2000). Laparoscopic colposuspension: A short term urodynamic follow-up and a three-year questionnaire-study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 79(5), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2000.079005414.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free