Laparoscopic colposuspension versus vaginal suburethral slingplasty: a randomised prospective trial

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to determine if laparoscopic colposuspension (LC) was as effective as vaginal suburethral slingplasty (SPARC).

Methods: Ninety-seven women with urodynamic stress incontinence were prospectively randomised to LC (n=48) or SPARC (n=49). Outcome measures were measured at, baseline, six months (n=87) and two years (n=58), and comprised leakage episodes per week and visual analogue scale (VAS) of incontinence severity. The LC and SPARC groups at baseline had similar leaks per week (8.8 vs 9.8) and VAS (5.6 vs 5.9).

Results: Laparoscopic colposuspension took longer to perform (48 vs 30 mins, P<0.001), had a slightly higher blood loss (104 vs 82 mL, P<0.01), had a longer hospitalisation (4.0 vs 1.5 days, P<0.001) and had a longer time to resumption of normal activities (3.6 vs 2.8 week, P<0.01). At six months there were no significant differences between LC and SPARC with regard to leaks per week (1.1 vs 2.6) and VAS (1.3 vs 0.7). The success rates were similar (88.3 vs 81.8%). These results again had no significant differences at two years (leaks per week 2.1 vs 3.5, and VAS 1.7 vs 2.2). At two years, the cure/improved rates again found no significant difference (81.5 vs 77.4%)

Conclusions: Laparoscopic colposuspension is as effective as vaginal suburethral slingplasty after two years' follow-up.