Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension: which one should we choose?

Abstract

Purpose of review: The aim of this review is to present a summary of recently published research comparing laparoscopic and open colposuspension. It also examines the place of colposuspension in light of the continuing development other minimally invasive procedures for stress urinary incontinence.

Recent findings: The results of two large multicentre randomised controlled trials were published in 2006 comparing open and laparoscopic colposuspension. Carey et al. randomised 200 women to open or laparoscopic colposuspension. The primary outcome objective was cure 6 months postoperatively. Cure was defined as the absence of urodynamic stress incontinence. Patients' subjective outcomes were assessed 3-5 years postoperatively. Kitchener et al. reported a randomised controlled trial in which 291 women were recruited. The primary end point of the study was objective cure at 2 years. This was defined as <1 g of urinary leakage during a 1 h standardised pad test. Both trials demonstrated no significant differences between laparoscopic and open colposuspension in objective and subjective measures of cure of stress urinary incontinence at 24 months.

Summary: There is now level 1 evidence that the clinical outcomes with laparoscopic Burch colposuspension are similar to open Burch colposuspension.