Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2011 April;63(2) > Minerva Ginecologica 2011 April;63(2):171-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

Minerva Ginecologica 2011 April;63(2):171-9

Copyright © 2011 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: Italian

A retrospective analysis comparing colposuspension and retropubic mid-urethral sling as preventive anti-incontinence measures during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Palomba S. 1, Oppedisano R. 1, Materazzo C. 1, Albano A. 1, Condorelli M. 1, Dicello A. 1, Napolitano V. 2, Zullo F. 1

1 Cattedra di Ginecologia e Ostetricia, Università “Magna Graecia” di Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italia; 2 Unità di Uroginecologia, Ospedale “San Giovanni Evangelista”–, Tivoli, Roma, Italia


PDF


AIM: The aim of this paper was to compare two anti-incontinence procedures during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) to prevent postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 90 continent hysterectomized patients with vaginal vault prolapse treated with LSC plus colposuspension (group A, N.=30), LSC plus retropubic mid-urethral sling (group B, N.=30), or LSC alone (group C, N.=30).
RESULTS: De novo SUI rate resulted significantly (P<0.05) lower in group B than C. No difference was detected regarding de novo urge urinary incontinence. Total reoperation rate resulted significantly (P<0.05) higher in group A than B and lower in group B than C.
CONCLUSION: When associated to LSC for preventing SUI, colposuspension and retropubic mid-urethral sling are effective and safe, even if mid-urethral sling seems to provide the best risk/benefit profile.

top of page