Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Laparoscopic burch colposuspension: comparison of effectiveness of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal techniques.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Sep 10; 116(1):79-84.EJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of two different laparoscopic colposuspension procedures: extraperitoneal approach using mesh fixed with tacks, and transperitoneal approach using sutures.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients (n = 64) who had undergone two different techniques of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension without additional surgeries over a 6-year period. Thirty-six women underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal colposuspension with using nonabsorbable sutures (group A), whereas 28 women underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal colposuspension with using mesh and preperitoneal balloon dissection technique (group B). Cure rate was assessed by simple cystometry with a cough stress test in the standing position. Both groups were compared with regard to cure rates, operative time, length of hospital stay, complications, estimated blood loss, and total hospital charges.

RESULTS

The mean times to follow-up were 25.7 months in the group A and 27.3 months in the group B (P = 0.082). At last follow-up, 33 of 36 (91.7%) patients in the group A and 23 of 28 (82.1%) patients in the group B were continent (P = 0.22). The other results were as follows for group A and B, respectively: average duration of surgery, 58.1 compared with 46.8 min (P = 0.001); average hospital stay, 2.05 compared with 1.57 days (P = 0.02); the intraoperative complication rate, 8.3% compared with 7.1% (P = 0.62). The total hospital charges for the group B were found significantly higher (US dollars 2,234 versus US dollars 1,348, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although we found higher cure rates in laparoscopic colposuspension with the transperitoneal approach using sutures than the extraperitoneal approach using mesh fixed with tacks, there was no statistically significant difference between the two procedures. In comparison with extraperitoneal mesh technique, lower cost is the superiority of the transperitoneal suture technique.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gazi University School of Medicine, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15294373

Citation

Bulent Tiras, M, et al. "Laparoscopic Burch Colposuspension: Comparison of Effectiveness of Extraperitoneal and Transperitoneal Techniques." European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, vol. 116, no. 1, 2004, pp. 79-84.
Bulent Tiras M, Sendag F, Dilek U, et al. Laparoscopic burch colposuspension: comparison of effectiveness of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;116(1):79-84.
Bulent Tiras, M., Sendag, F., Dilek, U., & Guner, H. (2004). Laparoscopic burch colposuspension: comparison of effectiveness of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal techniques. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 116(1), 79-84.
Bulent Tiras M, et al. Laparoscopic Burch Colposuspension: Comparison of Effectiveness of Extraperitoneal and Transperitoneal Techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Sep 10;116(1):79-84. PubMed PMID: 15294373.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Laparoscopic burch colposuspension: comparison of effectiveness of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal techniques. AU - Bulent Tiras,M, AU - Sendag,Fatih, AU - Dilek,Umut, AU - Guner,Haldun, PY - 2003/09/21/received PY - 2003/12/21/revised PY - 2004/02/02/accepted PY - 2004/8/6/pubmed PY - 2004/12/16/medline PY - 2004/8/6/entrez SP - 79 EP - 84 JF - European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology JO - Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol VL - 116 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of two different laparoscopic colposuspension procedures: extraperitoneal approach using mesh fixed with tacks, and transperitoneal approach using sutures. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients (n = 64) who had undergone two different techniques of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension without additional surgeries over a 6-year period. Thirty-six women underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal colposuspension with using nonabsorbable sutures (group A), whereas 28 women underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal colposuspension with using mesh and preperitoneal balloon dissection technique (group B). Cure rate was assessed by simple cystometry with a cough stress test in the standing position. Both groups were compared with regard to cure rates, operative time, length of hospital stay, complications, estimated blood loss, and total hospital charges. RESULTS: The mean times to follow-up were 25.7 months in the group A and 27.3 months in the group B (P = 0.082). At last follow-up, 33 of 36 (91.7%) patients in the group A and 23 of 28 (82.1%) patients in the group B were continent (P = 0.22). The other results were as follows for group A and B, respectively: average duration of surgery, 58.1 compared with 46.8 min (P = 0.001); average hospital stay, 2.05 compared with 1.57 days (P = 0.02); the intraoperative complication rate, 8.3% compared with 7.1% (P = 0.62). The total hospital charges for the group B were found significantly higher (US dollars 2,234 versus US dollars 1,348, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although we found higher cure rates in laparoscopic colposuspension with the transperitoneal approach using sutures than the extraperitoneal approach using mesh fixed with tacks, there was no statistically significant difference between the two procedures. In comparison with extraperitoneal mesh technique, lower cost is the superiority of the transperitoneal suture technique. SN - 0301-2115 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15294373/Laparoscopic_burch_colposuspension:_comparison_of_effectiveness_of_extraperitoneal_and_transperitoneal_techniques_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -